Book / G &> — . 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



STUDIES IN 
CHURCH HISTORY 



BERTRAND L. CONWAY 

OF THE 

PAULIST FATHERS 



ST LOUIS, MO., 1915 
Published by B. Herder 
17 South Broadway 

FREIBURG (BADEN) 68, Great Russell Str. 

Germany LONDON, W. C. 



NIHIL OB ST AT: 

Remigius Lafort, S.T.D., 

Censor Deputatus. 

IMPRIMATUR: 

Joannes M. Farley, 
Archiep. Neo Ebor. 

Sept. 8, 1915 



Copyright, 1915 
by 

Joseph Gummersbach 



All rights reserved 
Printed in V. S. A. 




OCT 2G 1315 



©CI.A414168 



PREFACE 



The present volume is made up of a number of 
' ssays and reviews which have already been published 
. i the pages of The Catholic World. They are for the 
lost part summaries of important volumes on Church 

.story and synopses of important articles in some 
of the leading French encyclopedias. Many of the 
questions discussed in these pages are continually 
being asked, by earnest seekers after the truth, 
through the medium of the Question Box on the Paul- 
ist missions to non-Catholics. 

Out of many volumes of typewritten questions 
actually submitted during the past seventeen years I 
find the following : 

Is not asceticism opposed to the Gospel of Christ? 

Did not monasticism arise from the cults of pagan- 
ism? 

Did Jesus really found a Church? 

"Was not the Episcopate a human institution? 

Was not the early Church democratic? 

Was not the Church Catholicized hundreds of years 
after Christ? 

Did Christianity have any influence upon the legis- 
lation of the early Christian emperors ? 

Were not the early Christians communists? 



PREFACE 



What proof is there of the Assumption of the Vir- 
gin? 

Did not the early Church refuse to pardon certain 
sins? 

Was there ever a female Pope? 

Were not the Catholics of Elizabeth's day traitors? 

Are not Catholics afraid to publish all the docu- 
ments relating to the Council of Trent? 

Does not the condemnation of Galileo prove that 
your intolerant Church is hostile to science, and that 
your Popes are fallible? 

All of these queries are answered in the following 
pages in a brief and popular manner, while ample 
references are given to works which discuss them in 
detail. 

Bertrand L. Conway, C. S. P. 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Christian Asceticism in the First Three Cen- 
turies 3 

The Government of the Church in the First 
Century 32 

Christianity and the Roman Law .... 56 

The Assumption of the Blessed "Virgin . . .71 

The Edict of Pope Callistus 89 

The Legend of Pope Joan 107 

The Original Diaries of the Council of Trent 119 

Cardinal Allen 138 

The Condemnation of Galileo 155 



STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



STUDIES 
IN CHURCH HISTORY 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM IN THE FIRST 
THREE CENTURIES 1 

During the last fifty years rationalistic scholars 
have devised a number of arbitrary theories on the 
origin of monasticism. They have attempted to prove, 
by a vast array of pseudo-erudition, that the monastic 
life cannot be traced to Jesus Christ and the Twelve 
Apostles, but owes its origin to the Buddhistic monks 
of India, 2 the recluses of the temples of Serapis, 3 the 
Jewish Essenians, 4 the Therapeutae of Lake Mareotis, 5 
or the ascetics of Mithraism. 6 

The Abbe Martinez has recently published, under 
the auspices of the Catholic Institute of Paris, a schol- 

1 L'Ascetisme Chretien pendant les trots premiers siecles 
de Vfiglise. By Abbe F. Martinez, S.M. Paris: Gabriel 
Beauchesne. 

2 Hilgenf eld, Zeitschrift fiir wiss. TheoL, 1867, p. 163. 

3 Weingarten, Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, 1877, pp. 
1-35, 545-547. 

4 Staiidlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu; Gfrorer, Philo 
und die Alex. Theosophie. 

5 Amenilineau, cited in Ladeuze, tltude sur le Cenobitisme 
Pakhomien, p. 169. 

6 Reinach, Orpheus, p. 102; Cumont, Textes et Monuments, 
vol. i, p. 338 et seq. 

3 



4 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



arly treatise in refutation of these five a priori hy- 
potheses. In a brief introduction 7 he points out their 
inconsistency, while in the body of his work 8 he gives 
us a most detailed account of the asceticism of the 
first three centuries, proving, beyond the shadow of a 
doubt, its Christian origin. 

Chapter I treats of asceticism in the New Testament 
and in the Apostolic Age. Harnack 9 and Dob- 
schiitz 10 both maintain that " Jesus Himself did not 
live the life of an ascetic. " It is true indeed that He 
practiced celibacy and poverty but they were required 
by His special mission. There is nothing in His teach- 
ing, nor in that of the Apostles, to justify the extraor- 
dinary development of the ascetic life. In reality, it 
goes directly counter to the very principles of Chris- 
tianity. This is clearly proved by the fact that the 
progress of asceticism and the development of Chris- 
tianity did not go hand in hand. The primitive 
Christian communities were in no sense communities 
of ascetics; their success depended on their making 
Christianity a practical matter of every day life. 
The early apologists never appealed to the heroism of 
the Christian ascetics in their defense of Christianity, 
but commended the spirit of charity which filled every 
true Christian heart. 

7 Pages 1-18. 
s Pages 19-204. 

9 Sitzungber, der Eon. preuss Akad. der Wiss., 1891, vol. i, 
p. 11. 

10 Die Urchristlichen Gemeinden, p. 261. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 



5 



This in brief is the rationalistic thesis, which the 
Abbe Martinez refutes by a thorough study of all the 
passages of the New Testament which refer to the 
place of asceticism in the teaching of our Saviour. 
The modern rationalist makes no distinction whatever 
between the orthodox asceticism of the Catholic 
Church and the Gnostic pseudo-asceticism, which was 
strongly denounced by the early Fathers on account of 
its false dogmatic basis and its pagan excesses. We 
will not be guilty of such a mistake. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true Man in 
one Divine personality, was not, we readily admit, a 
mere ascetic. His divine mission far surpassed the 
narrow outlook of the continent es of the primitive 
Christian communities. But it is evident from even 
a cursory study of the Gospels, that He both preached 
and practiced the principles of the ascetic life from 
the beginning to the end of His earthly ministry. 

We know that our Saviour prepared for His public 
ministry by fasting forty days in the desert among 
wild beasts. 11 Not only was He the model of the vir- 
gin life, but He was most careful to guard against the 
slightest suspicion in the matter of purity. The dis- 
ciples were astonished even to find Him talking with 
a woman. 12 He practiced poverty to such an extent 
that "He had not where to lay His head," 13 and He 
did not even have in his possession the stater for the 
tribute money. 14 He often retired apart from the 

11 Matt. iv. 2; Mark i. 13. is Matt. viii. 20. 

12 John iv. 27. i* Matt. xvii. 26. 



6 



STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



multitude, and spent whole nights in prayer after 
days of most fatiguing preaching. 15 Virginity, abso- 
lute poverty, and the love of solitude and prayer — 
these have ever been the characteristic virtues of the 
true ascetic. It is true that we find no mention of 
Our Lord's bodily mortifications, but we read contin- 
ually of His laborious preaching from city to city, 16 
and His patient endurance of hunger, thirst, and 
bodily fatigue. We are not surprised, therefore, to 
find the early Fathers and ecclesiastical writers calling 
Jesus Christ "the Prince of Virgins," 17 alluding to 
His great poverty, 18 and referring to the "His perfect 
asceticism. ' ' 19 

It is true that the ascetic teaching of J esus does not 
hold the predominant place in the Gospels which our 
rationalistic critics think necessary for our defense of 
monasticism. But Our Lord did not come to establish 
a community of monks pledged to the highest degree 
of perfection, but to found a Church for all men. 
Our Lord's general moral teaching was undoubtedly 
most sublime. Christians are to be perfect as their 
Heavenly Father is perfect; they are all called upon 
to live a life of self-denial, sacrifice, renouncement, 
and suffering. His words are : "I came not to send 
peace but the sword. ... He that taketh not up his 
cross is not worthy of Me." "He that shall lose his 

is Matt. xiv. 23; Mark vi. 31, 32; Luke v. 16; ix. 10, 18, 
28; xi. 1; xxii. 39. 
is Luke viii. 1. 

i7 Methodius, Bishop of Olympia, Convivium, Orat X., iii. 

is Tertullian, De Poenitentia, viii. 

is Clement of Alexandria, Strom, iii, 6. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 7 



life for My sake shall find it. ' ' 1 ' If any man come to 
Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and 
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own 
life also, he cannot be My disciple. ' ' 20 Self-denial is 
an essential characteristic of the true follower of 
Jesus, and in times of persecution, such as He evi- 
dently had in mind in the above texts, this self-denial 
was to be heroic even unto death. 

But there are other teachings of our Saviour in- 
tended only for an elite few. They are in no sense 
commandments for the multitude, but counsels left to 
the free choice of those who were to follow Him more 
intimately in the way of perfection. Protestantism, 
cursed with the worldly taint of a merely human gos- 
pel, has ever ignored Our Lord ? s teaching on the coun- 
sels. That is the chief reason of its bitter hatred of 
monasticism and the religious life. That is why the 
liberal Protestants of to-day do their utmost to trace 
the origin of asceticism to a pagan philosophy or a 
pagan religion. 

Jesus mentioned the counsel of chastity in the nine- 
teenth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel. He was re- 
storing marriage to its primitive purity, and prohibit- 
ing divorce even in the case of adultery. When, in 
view of this strict teaching, the disciples declared: 
"It is not expedient to marry," Jesus took occasion 
of their remonstrance to set forth clearly the practice 
of celibacy ' 1 for the kingdom of heaven. ' ' The prohi- 
bition of divorce is a commandment for all Christians ; 

20 Matt. x. 34-38; Mark viii. 35; Luke ix. 24; xiv. 26. 



8 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



the practice of celibacy is a counsel for the elite few. 
' ' He that can take, let him take it. ' ' 21 Some non- 
Catholic scholars arbitrarily try to show that these 
last words of Our Lord refer to the indissolubility of 
marriage, 22 while others think it strange that our Lord 
should recommend celibacy while extolling marriage. 23 
The first theory does violence to the context, while the 
second sees opposition where in reality none exists. 
It is unquestionably true that Our Lord's counsel of 
celibacy marks the beginnings of asceticism, for vir- 
ginity is its basic and essential element. Asceticism 
is possible even when the other practices that generally 
accompany virginity are absent ; but without virginity 
it does not and cannot exist. 

Jesus counseled poverty even more explicitly. He 
said: "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money 
in your purses." "Take nothing for your journey, 
neither staff, nor scrip, nor bread, nor money." 
"Sell what you possess and give alms." "Every one 
that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot 
be My disciple." "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell 
what thou hast, and give to the poor." 24 He did not 
give a command to the rich young man, but clearly 
made an appeal to his generosity : "If thou wilt be 
perfect" are His words. 25 Finally, Jesus asked His 
chosen ones to renounce their own wills, "to deny 

21 Matt. xix. 12. 

22 Zakn, Komment. mm N. T.-Ev. Matt., p. 389 et seq. 

23 Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of St. Mat- 
thew, p. 205. 

24 Matt. x. 9; Luke ix. 3; xii. 33; xiv, 33; Matt. xix. 21. 

25 Knabenbauer, Comm. in Matt., p. 158. 



CHKISTIAN ASCETICISM 9 



themselves and to take up their cross." 26 Harnack 27 
is wrong in declaring that the Catholic Church 
teaches two different moral codes, one for the multi- 
tude, and another for the monk who stands for a 
higher type of perfection. The difference between 
them is merely a difference of degree, or rather of 
means. Both have the same end in view, viz., the love 
of God and the love of the neighbor for God's 
sake. 

St. John the Baptist, who stands midway between 
the Old Law and the New, is a character well worthy 
of study from the viewpoint of asceticism. He is at 
once a Jewish prophet and a Christian ascetic. He 
led a solitary life in the desert of Juda, practised the 
most rigorous penance, and insisted upon his disciples 
fasting. 255 His ascetic life explains the veneration and 
love the people had for him. 29 

The example and teaching of Jesus were the inspira- 
tion of His Apostles. Were the Apostles married men 
or celibates? St. Peter tells us that the Apostles left 
all things to follow Jesus, 30 but we are hardly justified 
in deducing much from so indefinite a statement. 
We know that St. Peter was married, 31 and that St. 
Paul was not. 32 The witness of the early ecclesiastical 
writers does not help us much, for their testimony is 

26 Matt. xvi. 24. 

27 Das Wesen des Christ enthums, p. 51. 

28 Matt. iii. 4; Mark i. 6; Lev. xi. 22; Matt. ix. 14. 

29 Matt. xi. 9; Luke vii. 26; John v. 35; Luke iii. 15. 

30 Mark x. 28. 

31 Mark i. 30. 

32 1 Cor. vii. 7. 



10 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



rather late, and St. Clement of Alexandria 33 contra- 
dicts Tertullian. 34 

Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History 35 describes 
the austere asceticism of St. James, the first Bishop of 
Jerusalem, and mentions the virgin daughters of the 
evangelist Philip, "who did prophesy." 36 St. Clem- 
ent of Alexandria speaks of the deacon Nicholas, who 
lived apart from his wife, and whose daughters were 
virgins. Mayer 37 is right in recognizing the germ of 
asceticism in the primitive Christian community of 
Jerusalem. 38 The communism which they practised 
like the monks of the fourth century, was by no means 
obligatory, as we learn from St. Peter's words to 
Ananias, 39 but a matter of free choice. The Acts say 
nothing, however, of the practice of virginity, which 
later on was to become the very essence of the ascetical 
life. 

St. Paul's teaching on celibacy is set forth in the 
seventh chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians. 
Virginity is, absolutely speaking, a good state in itself ; 
it is indeed preferable to marriage, because it enables 
the Christian to serve God better, and "to be holy 
both in body and in spirit." It is not intended for 
all, for "every one has his proper gift from God, one 
after this manner and another after that." 

S3 Strom., iii, 6. 

34 Be Monog., viii, cf. Leclercq, Diet. d'Archeologie, Celibat. 

35 II, C h. xxiii, 3, 5, 10; III, ch. xxxix, 9. 

36 Acts xxi. 9. Duchesne, Hist. Anc. de V^glise i vol. i } p. 
135. 

37 Die Christliche Asceze, p. 6. 

38 Acts ii. 44, 45 ; v. 4. 

39 Acts v. 4. 



CHKISTIAN ASCETICISM 11 

In his letter to the Colossians, the Apostle discusses 
the asceticism of certain communities of Asia Minor, 
which was inspired by either Jewish or Pagan influ- 
ences. 40 He does not find fault with their abstaining 
from meat and drink, as some ignorant controversial- 
ists have maintained, but, on the contrary, recognizes 
in their practices "a show of wisdom in their not 
sparing the body." 41 He does, however, absolutely 
condemn the human motives of their ascetic practices 
as conducing to pride. 42 Some Catholic writers have 
tried to make St. Paul a witness for the vow of vir- 
ginity, by a forced interpretation of 1 Tim. x. 12: 
" Having damnation, because they have made void 
their first faith. ' ' 43 But the Abbe Martinez rightly 
rejects this hypothesis, as well as the supposed men- 
tion of the Subintroductce 44 in 1 Cor. vii. 36-38. 

St. John in the Apocalypse speaks with the greatest 
enthusiasm of the state of virginity. "They sang as 
it were a new canticle. . . . These are they (144,000) 
who were not defiled with women: for they are vir- 
gins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth. 
These were purchased from among men, the first fruits 

40 Prat, La Theologie de St. Paul, p. 391. 

41 Col. ii. 23. 

42 Col. ii. 18. 

43 Bigelmair, Archiv. fur hath. Kirchenrecht, 1896, p. 85. 

44 The Subintroductce were those virgins who, while desirous 
of remaining true to their profession, lived with men who had 
also pledged themselves to the virgin life. They were united in 
a spiritual bond. With the one exception of the marital rela- 
tion, they lived in the closest possible intimacy. There is very 
little agreement among scholars as to their first appearance in 
history, their aim, or their relations with the ecclesiastical au- 
thorities. 



12 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



to God and to the Lamb: and in their mouth was 
found no lie: for they are without spot before the 
throne of God." 45 It is probable that he mentions 
Sardis as the home of some of these ascetics. 46 

No Catholic, of course, would expect to find in the 
Sacred Scriptures a complete and detailed account of 
asceticism or of the religious life. But the few pas- 
sages we have quoted prove clearly that the asceticism 
of the fourth century is based upon the teachings of 
Jesus and His Apostles. 

We have next to consider the testimony of the 
ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries, study- 
ing as we do so the pseudo-asceticism of Gnosticism, 
Encratism, and Montanism, and the influences of Neo- 
Platonism on the orthodox asceticism of Alexandria. 

The Apostle St. John was still living when St. 
Clement of Rome addressed his words of counsel to 
the ascetics of the Church of Corinth. Are not the 
following words an echo of St. Paul's propium 
donum f 47 ' ' Let him who is chaste in body not glory 
therein, for he knows that it is Another Who bestows 
upon him the gift of continence/' 48 

St. Ignatius, on his road to Rome to be martyred 
for the faith, sends greetings to the virgins of 
Smyrna. 49 Even at this early date, virginity was rec- 
ognized as a permanent state, and was highly honored 

45 Apoc. xiv. 3-5. 

46 Apoc. iii. 4. 

47 Proper gift, 1 Cor. vii. 7. 

48 Epis. ad. Cor., xxxviii. 2. 

49 Ad Smym., xiii, 1. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 13 



by the faithful. So much so, indeed, that some of 
these ascetics considered themselves superior to the 
bishop. St. Ignatius warns them against this spirit 
of pride, saying : ' ' Asceticism is good ; it honors the 
flesh of the Saviour ; but the ascetic is subject to the 
bishop, who is the head of the community. ' ' 50 

The Didache 51 speaks of a special type of ascetics, 
known as apostles or prophets. They traveled from 
city to city of Syria preaching the Gospel like modern 
Catholic missionaries, never staying long in any one 
place. They practised poverty, never accepting 
money for their labors. Indeed, those who did accept 
money were by the very fact excluded from the rank 
of prophets. Even though their celibacy is not ex- 
pressly mentioned, it may reasonably be inferred from 
their mode of life. Harnack 52 interprets a rather 
difficult passage of the Didache 53 to mean that they 
were models of virginity and continence. They were 
held in such honor by the people, that the author of 
the Didache feels called upon to remind them, as St. 
Ignatius had done, of the rightful authority of the 
bishops and deacons. 54 Some of the bishops of this 
period also lived the ascetical life. Polycrates of 
Ephesus says of Bishop Melito of Sardis that he was 
"a eunuch, who lived entirely in the Holy Spirit." 55 

50 Ad Polyc, v, 2 ; Duchesne, Hist. Anc. de VEglise, vol. i, 
p. 531. 

si A. D. 50-160. 

52 Lehre der Zwvlf Apostel., p. 44 et seq. 
53X1, 11. 

54 XV, 2. 

55 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., V, xxvi, 5. 



14 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



The aim of Hermas in his Shepherd is to preach 
penance, and to renew the fervor of those who had 
grown lax during the bitter trials of persecution. Al- 
though he does not address the ascetics directly, he 
cannot avoid alluding to them. He tells us that his 
wife was as a sister to him, and that his continence 
has gained for him the grace of God. He is totally 
opposed to all idea of encratism; he admits that a 
widow may marry again without sin, although he be- 
lieves widowhood more honorable in the sight of God. 
He speaks of the ascetics of Rome as little children, 
who have not been stained by sin; they do not know 
what sin is, for they have always remained pure. He 
says that they are happy, inasmuch as their reward is 
great in the sight of God. 56 

There has been a great deal of controversy about 
the meaning of a certain passage in the Shepherd, 
viz., Sim. ix, 10, 6. Funk and Achelis believe that it 
refers clearly to the Subintroductw, while Zahn and 
Harnack think that they did not come into being until 
the third century. Most probably the disputed pas- 
sage does not refer to any real occurrence at all. 57 

About the middle of the second century the Apolo- 
gists Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, and 
others began to write to the pagan emperors their elo- 
quent apologies of the Christian faith. One of their 
strongest arguments was to contrast the simple and 
pure lives of the Christians with the corruption of an 

Vis. i, 2-4; ii, 2, 3; Mand. iv, 4; Sim. ix, 29; xi, 29, 31. 
"Page 41. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 



15 



immoral and a debased paganism. If the ascetic life 
had attained a more perfect development, they might 
have insisted more on the heroism of these superior 
souls. But the ascetics still lived in the world, and 
were in no way distinguishable from the body of the 
faithful. However, they were far from neglecting so 
powerful an argument. They were proud of the num- 
ber of those who had lived the virgin life, and they 
defied the pagans to produce men or women compara- 
ble to them in virtue. 

St. Justin Martyr, after painting a vivid picture of 
pagan immorality, says : ' ' When we marry, we marry 
to bring forth children; when we renounce marriage, 
we are perfectly continent. ' ' 58 In two other passages 
he speaks of the great number of Christians who are 
practising celibacy and poverty. 59 Both Tatian and 
Athenagoras insist on the purity of the Christian 
women of their day, the latter saying that they were 
pure body and soul, shunning even evil thoughts and 
desires. He also declares with St. Paul, that many 
men and women who remain virgins to extreme old 
age, do so for the sole purpose of uniting themselves 
more intimately with God. 60 The Gospel origin of 
asceticism could not be more clearly put. Minucius 
Felix at the close of the second century writes: 
"Many are possessed of a body spotless by a perpetual 
virginity, although they do not boast of it. So far 

I Apol., xxix. 

59 / Apol., xiv, 2 ; xv, 6. 

60 Tatian, Oratio, 33 ; Athenagoras, Legatio, 33. 



16 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



removed is incest from our hearts, that some regard 
even the marriage bond with a sense of shame." 61 

It is clear from the few documents that remain to 
us of this second century, that asceticism was honored 
everywhere, both in the East and in the West; in 
Syria, in Asia Minor, in Greece, and in Rome. Wher- 
ever Christianity spread, generous souls by the thou- 
sands spontaneously followed, not merely the com- 
mands of the Lord, but also His free counsels of 
virginity and poverty. 62 

These virgins did not live apart from their families. 
They were regarded as superior to the average Chris- 
tian, though like them subject to their legitimate pas- 
tors. Their influence for good was felt not only by 
the faithful about them, but by the pagan world out- 
side, which often bore tribute to "their purity, mas- 
tery of soul, and passionate love of virtue. ' ' 63 Their 
asceticism was in no way dependent upon false dual- 
istic theories of Gnosticism, but was prompted by the 
idea of following more closely in the footsteps of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. Among the causes that explain 
the maintenance and development of the ascetic life, 
the chief are: First, the expectation of the second 
coming of the Saviour ; 64 second, the constant menace 
of persecution; 65 and third, the natural reaction that 

ei Oct. xxxix. 

62 Minucius Felix mentions poverty in Oct. xxxvi. 

63 Galien, quoted by Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung 
des Christ enthums, p. 157. 

64 1 Cor. vii. 29-31; Ep. Barn., iv, 3, 9; Did., x, 5, 16; Tert. 
Ad. Uxor., i, 3, 5; De Jejunio, xii; De Fug a, xii. 

65 Batiffol, Vtlglise naissante et le Cath., p. 22. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 17 



meets one extreme by another. The corrupt paganism 
of the day needed the corrective of purity, poverty, 
and self-denial. Every Christian by his very profes- 
sion was in a certain sense an ascetic. 

No greater mistake can be made by the student of 
early Church history than to confound the orthodox 
asceticism of the Christian Church with the exagger- 
ated and erroneous asceticism of Gnosticism, En- 
cratism, and Monatism. Gnosticism taught that mat- 
ter was intrinsically evil. This theory logically pro- 
duced a shameless licentiousness on the one hand, 
and a most rigorous asceticism on the other. The 
Nicolaites, Simon Magus and his followers, the Valen- 
tinians, the Basilidians, and the Carpocratians be- 
longed to the first class, while Saturninus, Cerdon, 
and Marcion were the leaders of the second. Marcion, 
for example, forbade his followers to marry, and re- 
fused to baptize married men and women unless they 
lived apart. He also prohibited the use of meat and 
wine even for the Eucharist. His excessive austerity 
attracted thousands of adherents. 66 His practical 
mind discarded most of the metaphysical subtleties 
that appealed only to the elite in Gnosticism, and he 
modeled his sect upon the organization of the Christian 
Church. 67 Still, his influence on the development of 
orthodox asceticism was absolutely nil. The Fathers 
of the Church unanimously condemned the Gnostic 
teaching, that matter was eternal and essentially evil. 

66 St. Justin, Apol. i, 26, 58 ; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi, 
11; Clement of Alexandria, Strom., in, 4. 

67 Tertullian, Adv. Marc, iv, 5. 



18 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 

All that God has created is good ; there is nothing evil 
but sin. 68 Marriage and procreation, instead of 
being the work of the devil, were sacred. 69 Christians 
also abstain and fast, but their motive is the love and 
following of Jesus ; meat and drink are not evil in 
themselves. It is false to hold that every Christian 
must be an ascetic. On the contrary, virginity is a 
matter of free choice, and not of universal obligation. 70 
Encratism, which existed in the first days of Chris- 
tianity, 71 endeavored to impose asceticism upon every 
Christian. At the outset, the encratitai 72 were not 
out-and-out heretics; they believed everything that 
the Church taught about God and about Jesus Christ. 
But they soon departed from the orthodox teaching 
by their obstinate adherence to an ultra rigorous as- 
ceticism. They condemned marriage, drank nothing 
but water, and would not eat anything possessed of 
life. 73 Later on they became identified with the Gnos- 
tics and the Montanists. 74 Encratism was especially 
powerful in the Eastern Church, where its teachings 
were spread by means of religious romances like the 
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel of the 

Clement of Alexandria, Strom., ii, 12. 

69 Tertullian, De Anima, xxvii. "Natura veneranda est, 
non erubescenda. Concubitum libido, non condicio foedavit. 
Excessus, non status, est impudicus, siquidem benedictus 
status apud Deum: Crescite et in multitudinem proficite." 

70 Duchesne, Hist. Anc. de Vlhglise, vol. i, p. 487. 

71 1 Tim. iv. 1-5. 

72 Hippol. Philos., viii. 

73Batiffol, fitudes d'Hist. et de Theol.; Leclercq, Diet. 
d'Arch., col. 2605. 

74 Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, p. 226. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 19 



Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of John, and the 
Martyrdom of Peter. Now and again, Encratism 
gained some following among the simple faithful, but 
it never became the official teaching of the Church. 
The Fathers of the first three centuries were unani- 
mous in asserting the absolute freedom of virginity, 
and the other practices of the ascetic life. 75 

The rigorous asceticism of Montanism was ener- 
getically combated by the Church from the beginning. 
Apollinaris, Melito, Alcibiades, and others wrote spe- 
cial treatises against it, while synods were held all 
throughout Asia Minor to condemn it. Rome, which 
at first hesitated, finally banned it in the name of 
Popes Victor and Zephyrinus. 76 

Tertullian tells us that ascetics were very numerous 
at Carthage. 77 Men and women vied with one an- 
other in the practice of the virgin life. Many kept 
their bodies spotless to extreme old age. 78 Even mar- 
ried folks often renounced their marital rights. 79 
The people venerated the virgins, and the clergy re- 
served for them the first place in the church near the 
altar. so Tertullian praises virginity, but never to the 
detriment of marriage. He declares with St. Paul 
that marriage is good, but that virginity is better. 
The great merit of virginity lies in its being embraced 

75 Cf. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, in Eusebius, Hist. Ec- 
cles., TV, xxiii, 7, and the martyrs of Lyons in ibid., V, iii, 2. 

76 Funk, Kirchenlexicon, viii, col. 1831. 

77 Be Ress. Carnis., lxi. 79 Ad Uxorem, vi. 
78Z)e Vel. Virg., x; Apol., ix. so Be Vel Virg., xi; xiv. 



20 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



freely. 81 It is the highest form of sanctity ; a gift of 
God, to be guarded without boasting, and in all hu- 
mility ; 82 its reward is the kingdom of God. 83 

The virgins of the third century continued to live 
in the midst of their families, a fact responsible for 
the abuses mentioned by Tertullian. Even though we 
make due allowance for his vehement invectives, we 
must admit that some of the virgins at Carthage were 
vain and immoral. 84 The scandals alluded to were 
rare indeed, but they prove the necessity of the safe- 
guards afforded later on by the common life. 

Some scholars declare that the fourteenth chapter 
of the De Velandis Virginibiis refers to the Subintro- 
ductce, but we do not think they prove their conten- 
tion. 

Tertullian says nothing about the practice of pov- 
erty. But his words on that subject may reasonably 
be applied to the ascetics of his time. He declares 
money "the cause of injustice, and the lord of the 
world. ' ' 85 He holds up the example of poverty given 
by the Saviour, and calls especial attention to the 
invitation of Jesus to the rich young man to sell all 
he possessed, if he would be perfect. 86 

The ascetics of Carthage practised mortification, 
chiefly in the form of abstinence from meat and wine. 
Their only motive was to humble themselves in God's 

si Adv. Marc, i, 29. 

82 De Ex. Cast., i ; De Vel. Vvrg., xiii. 

83 Ad Uxorem, vi. 

84 De Vel. Virg., xiv. 

85 Adv. Marc, IV, xxiii. 

86 De Pcenitentia, vii ; Adv. Marc, iv, 36. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 21 

sight, and to preserve their chastity by mortifying 
their love of eating and drinking. 87 

Some Catholic writers, like Wilpert, 88 Schiwietz, 89 
Dom Besse, 90 and Heimbucher 91 maintain that Ter- 
tullian not only speaks of the vow of virginity in his 
De Velandis Virginibus? 2 but that he distinguishes be- 
tween private and public vows of virginity. But this 
is a most arbitrary reading of the text. There is no 
passage in Tertullian which mentions clearly the exist- 
ence of a public vow; although there are some texts 
which probably may refer to a private vow. We call 
attention to the special terms which Tertullian uses 
when speaking of the virgin state. 93 

With St. Cyprian the ascetic life takes on a new 
phase. We know from a letter that he wrote to Bishop 
Pomponius, 94 that the virgin of his time made a vow 
of virginity, which was not an ordinary promise, but 
a sacred vow that made her a spiritual bride of Christ. 
He regarded the violation of this vow as a serious 
crime involving excommunication, and exacted a rigor- 
ous penance before he admitted the guilty one to com- 
munion. 

87 De Cult. Foem., ii, 9. 

ss Die Gottgeweihten Jungfrauen, p. 20. 

89 Das Morgenl. Monchtum, p. 19. 

so Le Monachisme Africain, p. 37. 

91 Die Orden und Congregationem der Eat. Kirche, p. 157. 

92 Chapters iii, xiv, xv. 

93 De Oratione, 22 ; De Vel. Virg., iii, xi, xiii, xvi ; De Ress 
Camis, xli. Nupsisti Christo, Mi carnem tuam tradidisti; 
age pro mariti tui disciplina. Si nuptas alienas velari jubet, 
suas utique multo magis. He calls the virgins in other pas- 
sages virgines sacrw; virgines sanctce; maritatce Christo, etc. 

s^Epis. lxii. 



22 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Amidst the many cares of a most onerous episcopate, 
St. Cyprian always manifested a special affection for 
the virgins of Carthage. 95 He speaks of them con- 
tinually in his works, and, in fact, wrote himself the 
first complete treatise we possess on the ascetic life. 
He tells us that the ascetics were very numerous, and 
that every class of society was represented in their 
ranks. 86 He styles them "the chosen portion of the 
flock of Christ," and ranks them immediately after 
the martyrs. We know that they were worthy of his 
praise by their love of martyrdom. 97 Virginity is a 
free state, embraced in order to attain perfection, 
and to acquire the virtues of justice, religion, faith, 
humility, patience, and mercy ; its reward is the king- 
dom of heaven. 98 

St. Cyprian makes no mention of the practice of 
poverty. The virgins always kept enough money to 
supply their wants, and those of noble birth lived ac- 
cording to their state of life. Although the bishop 
did not praise them for this, 99 he simply urged them 
to despise the world and its pleasures. Above all they 
are to avoid all luxurious dressing in silk and purple, 
the use of gold and precious stones, and any outward 
adornment calculated to attract the looks of lascivious 
young men. 100 He quotes, like his predecessors, the 

95 Be Habit. Virg., iii. 

06 Epis. ad Antonianum, Be Hab. Vvrg., vii. 

S7 Epis. lxxvii ; Be Lapsis, ii. 

»8 Be Hab. Virg., xxiii. 

s*Ibid., vii. 

ioo/6id., viii, ix, xiii, xvi, etc. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 23 



words of our Lord to the rich young man of the Gos- 
pel. 101 

He says little about mortification, save to cite the 
words of St. Paul, 102 and to insist upon moderation in 
eating and drinking in order to obtain a better com- 
mand over the passions, and to devote oneself more 
ardently to prayer. 103 

Although there is still no evidence of the virgins 
living the common life, St. Cyprian's constant exhor- 
tations to lead a more recollected life, and to shun 
promiscuous gatherings at banquets and the public 
baths, prepared the way for the common life of a later 
period. The scandals of the Subintroductce which 
are spoken of plainly in the sixty-second letter of St. 
Cyprian, also pointed in that direction. 

Outside of the Shepherd of Hermas and the writings 
of Hippolytus, we know hardly anything of the ascetic 
life in Rome during the first three centuries. Hip- 
polytus mentions ascetic practices and meditation, and 
condemns the marriage of clerics. 104 He speaks of 
the ascetics living a life apart from the world, and 
meditating upon the things of heaven. 105 

The frescoes of the catacombs give us a good idea 
of the ceremonies of a religious profession in the 
fourth, or perhaps at the close of the third, century. 

101 Matt. xix. 21. 

102 Gal. v. 24; vi. 14. 

103 Epis. vii. 

io4/^ Proverbia, P. G. x, col. 617; La Theologie de St. 
Hipp., p. 53. 

105 In Gen., P. G. x, col. 601. 



24 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



The bishop presided, while the virgin pronounced be- 
fore him the formula of consecration. He then laid 
hands upon her, and preached a sermon on the excel- 
lence and dignity of the virgin state. The faithful 
came in great numbers to witness what the Fathers 
called "a spiritual marriage." The virgin was then 
clothed with a special tunic or habit, as in the pro- 
fession of a nun in a convent to-day. 106 

These consecrated virgins spent a great part of the 
day in prayer ; practised mortification under the form 
of fasting; studied the Sacred Scriptures; engaged in 
manual labor; observed a rule of silence, and lived 
apart from the world. All these practices prove the 
identity of the asceticism of Rome in the fourth cen- 
tury with the asceticism of other parts of the Chris- 
tian world. As early as A. D. 350 the cloister was in 
existence, for at that date St. Marcella founded the 
first monastery in Rome. 

We know scarcely anything of the progress of Chris- 
tianity in Spain during the first three centuries. A 
couple of letters of St. Cyprian, and a chance allusion 
in St. Irenseus and Tertullian, are all that we pos- 
sess. 107 There is one clear reference, however, to the 
virgins of Spain in the thirteenth canon of the Coun- 
cil of Elvira. 108 The Council was legislating in regard 
to those virgins who had broken their vows, either by 
marrying, or by falling into sins of impurity. If 

106 Cf. Fresco of the Catacomb of St. Priscilla, Wilpert, Die 
Gottgeweihten Jungfrauen, p. 52 et seq. 

107 Adv. Haer., i, 10; Adv. Jud., vii. 

108 Leclercq, L'Espagne Chretienne, i, pp. 2, 5. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 25 



they continue in their sins, they are never to be ad- 
mitted to communion, even at the hour of death; if 
they do penance, and do not relapse, they are to be 
reconciled on their deathbed. 

Such legislation proves conclusively that asceticism 
had reached the same development in Spain as in 
North Africa. This is not at all surprising, when we 
remember the close communion between the Church in 
Spain and the Church in Carthage. 

Many non-Catholic scholars like Keim, 109 Zockler, 110 
and Harnack 111 assert that Neo-Platonism played a 
considerable part in the origin of monasticism. This 
theory, of course, is merely a part of their general 
thesis concerning the " Catholicizing, ' ' i.e., the Hel- 
lenization or paganizing of Christianity. They hold, 
with many rationalistic thinkers, that under the in- 
fluence of Greek philosophy, the spiritual liberty of 
the first two centuries gave way to the authoritative 
and bureaucratic spirit of Catholicism. Monsignor 
Batiffol has refuted this theory at length in his work 
on Primitive Catholicism. We are concerned with 
this theory only in so far as it affects asceticism. 

It is true that great teachers like Clement of Alex- 
andria and Origen made use of the Greek philosophy 
of their day the better to reach their age, but it by 
no means affected their ascetic teaching. 

Clement of Alexandria declares, with St. Paul, that 
virginity is superior to marriage ; that it is a grace of 

109 Aus der Urchristentum, p. 215. 
ii° Ascese und Monchtum, p. 144. 
in Dogmengeschichte, p. 252. 



26 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



God to be gratefully received ; that it should be prac- 
tised especially by those who wish to work efficaciously 
for their brethren. 112 He lays more stress, though, 
upon the dignity and sanctity of the married state, 
because the great evil of his time was the low birth 
rate due to the current pagan immorality. He seems, 
indeed, to prefer the Christian who marries, has chil- 
dren, and then lives the virgin life with his wife. 113 

He declares that riches are in themselves neither 
good nor evil ; they are merely an instrument ; all de- 
pends on how they are used. 114 Extreme poverty is 
not a good thing, for it often prevents a man from 
considering the higher things of the spirit, in his con- 
stant struggle to make a living. One may be without 
riches, and yet be guilty of sin, because he is most 
desirous of them in his heart. True poverty, there- 
fore, is poverty of spirit ; this alone frees a man from 
all affection for the things of this world. 115 The truly 
great soul always despises riches. 116 

He recommends mortification as a means of 
strengthening the soul patiently to endure suffering, 
and to keep the Christian ever in the path of right- 
eousness. An austere life will safeguard one from 
temptation, and prevent grievous falls. 117 He also 
insists upon the mortification of the senses and absti- 
nence from meat and wine, that the body might be 
kept pure from every stain. He urges the ascetic to 
pray continually, both in Church, at the canonical 

112 Strom., iii, iv, xii. 115 Ibid., xii. 

us Ibid., iii, 1, 16; vii, 12. Paed., ii, 3. 

ii4 Quis Dives Salvetur, xiv. in Ibid., ii, 1 ; Strom., vii, 7. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 27 



hours, and alone in his room, meditating upon the 
eternal truths. The true Gnostic is rarely to ask God 
for temporal favors; his heart must be bent entirely 
on celestial things. There is no mention in Clement's 
writings of any public vow of virginity, and probably 
no reference even to private vows. 

Origen continued and perfected the teaching of 
Clement of Alexandria on asceticism. History tells 
us very little of the life of Clement, but a great deal 
about his disciple. Origen was, indeed, a perfect type 
of the Christian ascetic. At eighteen years of age he 
was already the head of the great Christian school of 
Alexandria. Realizing the danger of falling away 
from true fervor because of the motley body of men 
and women who crowded to his lectures, he deter- 
mined to lead a most austere life. He went to the 
extreme of making himself a eunuch for the kingdom 
of heaven. 118 He also lived in the most absolute pov- 
erty. He sold his valuable library in exchange for 
four obols a day, which he considered enough for his 
immediate wants. He always walked barefooted, and 
wore but one garment. He abstained from wine, 
fasted frequently, slept but little, and on the bare 
ground, and exposed his body relentlessly to cold. In 
fact, every moment which he did not spend in study, 
or teaching, he devoted to the practices of austerity. 
Sickness at last forced him to discontinue these ascetic 
practices. 

His teaching, therefore, is simply a commentary 
us Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi, 3. 



28 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



upon his own manner of life. He recognized the law- 
fulness of marriage, and insisted on the freedom of 
virginity. He was rather rigoristic in his views on 
these matters, for we find him comparing the slavery 
of the marriage bond with the liberty of the virgin 
life. He was even ready to pardon the error of those 
widows who did not marry the second time for fear 
of hell. Those who married a second time might be 
saved, but they would not be crowned by Christ. 119 
He speaks of virgins as " flowers that ornament the 
Church of Christ, ' ' and ranks them immediately after 
the martyrs. Virginity is superior to marriage, be- 
cause it allows one to worship God without ceasing. 120 
He warns the ascetics against vanity, telling them that 
chastity is valueless unless "accompanied by the other 
virtues. In a word, purity of body is of no avail with- 
out purity of soul. 121 Jesus Christ is the model of 
every ascetic, who must live not for himself, but for 
Christ, Whose footsteps he must follow, and Whose 
cross he must bear. This distinguishes him at once 
from the philosophers of paganism. By their chastity 
the ascetics become like little children, and merit the 
kingdom of God. Origen, therefore, preaches asceti- 
cism, not in the name of his philosophical principles, 
but in the name of the Gospel, which is for him, as 

119 Cont. Gels., xx, 192; in Epis. ad Rom. vi, 12; vii, 295, 
395; Horn, xix in Jer. xv, 366. 

120 Horn, iii in Gen. ; Horn, ii in Numb. ; Horn, xxiii in Numb. 

121 In Epis. ad Bom.; Bornemann, in Invest, mon. Origine, 
p. 28. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 29 



for all the early Church writers, the unique source of 
the perfect life. 122 

It is pretty certain that Origen speaks of the vow 
of virginity more than once in his writings. The 
clearest text of all is the following, quoted by Schi- 
wietz in his Asceticism in the First Three Centuries, 
p. 17: "Et nos ergo, cum venimus ad Deum et 
vovemus ei nos in castitate servire, pronuntiamus 
labiis nostris et juramus nos castigare carnem nostram 
vel male ei facere atque in servitutem earn redigere, 
ut spiritum salvum facere possimus." 

The ascetics of his time did not practice poverty. 
Monasteries were not yet in existence, so that every 
Christian had to provide for his own necessities. 
Origen insists on the true ascetic renouncing all super- 
fluities, quoting the words of Christ. 123 He extols on 
page after page the virtue of poverty, calling it "a 
true holocaust upon the altar of the Lord. ' ' The good 
of eternal life will compensate for the loss of present 
possessions. 124 

Origen 's whole life proves the important place of 
mortification in asceticism, although he alludes to it 
directly in very few passages. Mortification is really 
an imitation of the Passion of Christ, and a means of 
purification for the soul consecrating itself entirely to 
God. It is a preservative of chastity, and helps the 

122 jr^, Epis. ad Rom.; Horn, xxiv in Numb.; Horn, vi in 
Ezech.; Cont. Cels. xx, 77; in Matt, iii, 238. 

123 Luke xiv. 33. 

12* Horn, ix in Lev.; in Psal. xii, 171. 



30 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Christian especially in the study of the Holy Scrip- 
tures. He recommends abstinence, meditation, prayer, 
vigils, and fasting as various means of mastering the 
lower nature. 125 

Contemplation in his eyes is the height of perfec- 
tion. It separates the ascetic from everything earthly 
and material, and makes him think only of God. The 
true ascetic must live in the world, but just as much 
apart from it as if he were living in the desert. Out- 
side of the requirements of apostolic zeal, he should 
not engage in worldly affairs. He should imitate the 
Saviour, Who loved to retire frequently apart from 
His disciples. 

In his commentary on St. Matthew, 126 Origen ex- 
presses his desire that the ascetics live the common 
life, but there is no proof that this wish of his was 
realized in his lifetime. We know from Eusebius that 
soon after the persecution of Diocletian, Peter, Bishop 
of Alexandria, passed his last days in ascetic practices 
in common with others. 127 Paul of Thebes, Anthony, 
and Hilarion were contemporaries or even prede- 
cessors of Bishop Peter of Alexandria. 

The Epistolce ad Virgines is the first document in 
ecclesiastical literature that treats ex professo of the 
ascetic life. It was written originally in Greek in the 

125 in Matt, iii, 171; De Prin., xxi, 327; in Matt, iii, 238; 
Horn, xiii in Ex. 

126 HI, 361. 

127 Hist. Eccles., VII, xxxii, 31. 



CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM 31 



first decade of the third century. 128 The critics assign 
it to a Christian of Egypt, and say that it was ad- 
dressed to the ascetics of Syria or Palestine. The 
writer praises virginity as 4 4 the blessed seed of God, 
the royal priesthood, the holy nation, and the people 
of God." The ascetic must have in view his own 
sanctification, and follow Jesus Christ as his model. 
He must practice an apostolate both of prayer and of 
action. He must not only preach the Gospel from 
city to city, but visit the orphans and widows, exor- 
cize the possessed, and care for the sick. He still lives 
like other Christians in the cities and villages, but he 
is always known as an ascetic; in his journeyings he 
must stay with the ascetics of the town. The Subin- 
troductce are mentioned more than once, and clearly 
mark the tendency towards community life. Poverty 
and mortifications of various sorts are strongly recom- 
mended. Certain abuses are mentioned, such as the 
sins of vanity, idleness, avarice, and immorality. 

Our last witness is Bishop Methodius of Olympia in 
Lycia. His Convivium gives us a picture of asceti- 
cism in Asia Minor, which is strikingly like conditions 
in Carthage a few years before. The development of 
asceticism in Asia Minor and Africa was not quite so 
advanced as in Egypt and the Orient. 

12-8 Harnack, Sitzungsberichte, vol. i. 



THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH IN 
THE FIRST CENTURY 1 

"The Catholic Church/' writes Father Moran in 
the Preface of his scholarly essay on the beginnings 
of the Christian ministry, ''bases her authority to 
teach and govern on the apostolic succession of her 
hierarchy. Christ founded a Church, and gave the 
Apostles whom He placed over it certain ecclesiastical 
powers to be transmitted by them to their successors 
to the end of time. The ecclesiastical superiors of 
to-day claim to teach and rule, not by election or dele- 
gation of the faithful, but by a kind of spiritual de- 
scent instituted by Christ. In this age of political 
liberalism and popular sovereignty, it is not surpris- 
ing to find the Church assailed for her oligarchical 
constitution. Advanced Protestants would have the 
people supreme in the Church as in the State; while 
modern rationalists would have us believe that our 
hierarchical jurisdiction is the effect of evolution and 
the growth of centuries, and that it was unknown and 
unheard of in the early Church. It is with a view of 
answering these difficulties that I propose to inquire 
into the government of the primitive Church, and to 

1 The Government of the Church in the First Century. By 
Rev. William Moran. New York: Benziger Bros. 

32 



THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 33 



show that its constitution was in principle the same 
in the first century as it is in the twentieth." 

What did Jesus Christ mean by "the Kingdom of 
God?" When Our Lord speaks of "the kingdom," 
He at once arouses the enthusiasm of the Jews, for 
the term stirs up in the national mind a world of 
hopes and expectations. The Jews in the captivity 
and in the dispersion had ever been sustained and 
encouraged by the prospect of the future glory and 
prosperity of the everlasting kingdom foretold by 
Daniel. 2 They did not realize the spiritual nature 
of the promises of the prophets, but looked forward 
to a great political empire, in which Israel would 
dominate the whole world. Jesus could not correct 
this false notion all at once, for the people would not 
have understood Him; the shock to their prejudices 
would have been too violent. His first care was, 
therefore, not to explain the nature of His kingdom, 
but rather to lead men quietly toward it ; to establish 
the authority of His mission, and thus place Himself 
in a position to transform the popular idea. 

Our Lord first tells the Jews that all human hopes 
and works must be made subservient to our last end: 
"What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole 
world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?" 
"Blessed are they that suffer persecution for jus- 
tice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." In 
this world man's religious life is never free from per- 
secution, risks, and temptations, but there is a life to 
2 Daniel vii. 26, 27. 



34 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 

come in which the blessed will enjoy all good things 
in peace. The words "Thy kingdom come" in the 
Lord's Prayer are a prayer for a kingdom on earth; 
but that kingdom consists in hallowing the name of 
the Father, and doing His will on earth, as it is done 
in heaven. This phase of the kingdom is opposed to 
the reign of sin and the devil: "What have we to 
do with Thee, Jesus of Nazareth; art Thou come to 
destroy us?" It is not so much a kingdom as a sov- 
ereignty, a reign of God in men 's hearts. A spiritual 
entity, it is contrasted with the goods of this world. 
"Be not solicitous, therefore, saying what shall we 
eat, or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we 
be clothed? . . . Seek ye first the kingdom of 
God." 

This sovereignty is but the soul of an earthly phase 
of the kingdom, in the proper sense of the word. 
This kingdom is the collectivity of all those who be- 
lieve in Christ and His teaching. "For this was I 
born," said Jesus to Pilate, "and for this came I 
into the world, that I should give testimony to the 
truth." His kingdom is primarily a kingdom of 
truth. It is not a puritanical reformation of Juda- 
ism, nor a prophetic school returning to a forgotten 
justice, but a new entity, based on a new revelation, 
which came, after John the Baptist, to complete the 
law and the prophets. It is a new glad tiding; a 
mysterious message; a hidden treasure; a pearl of 
great price. It is a message which the prophets 
longed to receive, and which the disciples are ac- 



THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 35 



counted blessed to hear. This revelation Jesus calls 
the word of the kingdom. 3 

"The law and the prophets were until John; from 
that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every 
one useth violence towards it. " 4 Here J esus is not 
speaking of the final kingdom in heaven, nor of the 
sovereignty of God in men's hearts, but of an exter- 
nal institution of some kind. "The time is accom- 
plished, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent 
and believe the Gospel," says Jesus. The accom- 
plished time is that spoken of by the prophets, after 
which "the Lord shall give Him the throne of David 
His father." The kingdom is that of the Son of 
David, a true kingdom on earth, composed of all those 
who "repent and believe the Gospel." This collec- 
tivity is represented as a seed-plot, where the good seed 
is sown, and where it germinates, and grows to a full 
harvest, to be at last gathered into the kingdom of 
the Father in heaven. 5 

The kingdom of God embraces in this life worthy 
and unworthy members, children of Christ and chil- 
dren of the devil. This is clear from the two para- 
bles of Jesus in Matt, xiii, which tell of the enemy 
sowing cockle among the wheat, and of the net con- 
taining good fish and bad. The citizens of the king- 
dom are those who understand the teaching of Christ, 
and have responded to the call of faith. Some guests' 

s Matt. vi. 31; Luke xvi. 16; Mark i. 15; Matt. xiii. 11 1 
16, 17, 19, 44, 45. 
4 Luke xvi. 16. 

s Matt. xii. 3, 18-23; Mark i. 15. 



36 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



are invited to the marriage feast, but they refuse to 
attend. The call to the kingdom is a great free gift 
of God. The great sin of the Jews consisted in their 
refusal to accept the word of the kingdom. "The 
publicans and harlots," said Jesus, "shall go into the 
kingdom of God before you. " " The kingdom of God 
shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a na- 
tion yielding the fruits thereof. ' ' 6 Penance or con- 
version is the first condition for entrance into the 
kingdom. "Do penance, for the kingdom of God is 
at hand." The disciple of the kingdom must receive 
the word of God with the simple faith and trust of 
a little child. "Whosoever does not receive the 
kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter 
it." 7 

On the road to Cassarea Philippi, Jesus promises to 
make St. Peter the ruler of the kingdom of God after 
His death. "I will give to thee the keys of the king- 
dom of heaven. . . . Thou art Peter, and upon this 
rock I will build My Church." Peter is to be the 
rock foundation; the Church built upon him will be 
indefectible ; he will be the chief steward ; his binding 
and loosing will be ratified in heaven; he will be the 
primate in the new kingdom. Later on, all the Apos- 
tles will receive together a promise to bind and loose 
with divine authority, becoming thereby partakers in 
one of the promises made to Peter. They will not, 
however, become the foundation ; they will not receive 
the keys of the kingdom. 

e Matt. xxi. 31, 43. 7 Mark x. 15. 



THE GOVEENMENT OF THE CHURCH 37 



Harnack fails to see in the teaching of Jesus the 
foundation of a Church, least of all a Universal 
Church. According to him Jesus was sent only to 
the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and in sending 
forth His disciples, He placed the same limits on their 
mission. Harnack maintains that the passages re- 
cording a universal mission, given by our Lord dur- 
ing the forty days, are but the expression of the 
Christian mind after it had seen the development of 
the Gospel for fifty years. The Apostles, no doubt, 
established a Universal Church before their death, but 
then "the chasm which separates Jesus from the 
Apostles has never been bridged over, nor can it be. ' ' 

An unbiased examination of the four Gospels re- 
veals naught of the narrow-minded nationalism sug- 
gested by Harnack. So little does Jesus think of an 
exclusively Jewish kingdom that, as a matter of fact, 
He tells us that the Jews will scarcely find a place in 
it at all. In the parable of the vineyard, Jesus tells 
the Jews that the kingdom will be taken from them 
and given to another nation. In the parable of the 
marriage feast, He develops the same idea. The 
prophet Isaias and John the Baptist both taught 
plainly that only a remnant of the Jews would in- 
herit the promises, and Jesus frequently spoke of the 
exclusion of the Jews from the kingdom. 8 

In the tenth chapter of Matthew, we see that the 
Apostles received two distinct missions. The first, 
confined to the Jews, was only a temporary mission 
8Cf. Matt. viii. 11; Luke xiii. 



38 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



which they shared in common with the seventy-two 
disciples. In this mission they organized no society, 
and enjoyed no special jurisdiction. A second and a 
greater mission is foreshadowed in Matt. x. 17, 18. 
The Apostles are to go forth on an unlimited mission ; 
their testimony is to be given before Gentiles as well 
as Jews ; they are to be brought before governors and 
kings as well as councils ; they will, in short, be hated 
by all men, because they come in the name of Christ. 
Their great commission — "Going, therefore, teach all 
nations' ' — is not the invention of a pious Christian, 
as Harnack would have us believe; it is the fulfill- 
ment of promises made frequently by Christ during 
His public ministry. 

Early in His ministry, Jesus selected twelve of His 
disciples, and gave them a special mission, and a spe- 
cial name, Apostles, literally those sent, messengers. 
The word was not borrowed from the Jews, nor was 
it of Scriptural origin. The apostolic office, in the 
discourses of Jesus, "seems to be chiefly a mission, a 
work of testimony. ' ' 9 

St. Paul brings out clearly the nature of the apos- 
tolic office, because his own claims to apostleship were 
frequently called in question. He defends eloquently 
the authenticity of his Gospel, the fruitfulness of his 
mission, and the hardships he endured, but above all 
he insists on the fact that he has been especially 
called and sent by Jesus Christ in person. 10 

9 Acts i. 8; Matt. x. 27; Matt, xxviii. 20. 

10 Gal. i. 1, 11, 12, 15-17; 1 Cor. xi; xv; 2 Cor. v. 20; 
Kom. x. 14; 1 Cor. ii. 1. 



THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 39 



From the very beginning, the Apostles were a cen- 
ter of authority for the Church. In the mother 
Church of Jerusalem, the supreme ecclesiastical au- 
thority was in their hands. 11 The Epistles of St. 
Paul represent them as the supreme teachers, the am- 
bassadors of God, the dispensers of the mysteries of 
Christian knowledge, and the guarantee of the purity 
of Christian doctrine. 12 St. Paul also speaks of their 
power of jurisdiction, which has both a judicial 13 
and a legislative phase. 14 The apostolate is not 
merely a magisterial charisma. St. Paul is equally 
a teacher and a ruler; he requires faith in his 
doctrine, and obedience to his ordinances. The 
preaching of the Gospel is not the free working of 
the Spirit. St. Paul preaches what he himself has 
received, 15 the testimony of Christ. He governs, 
likewise, in virtue of the power he has received from 
Christ. 16 

While the first Christians in Palestine had many 
points in common with the Jews, they clearly formed 
a distinct society or Church. Men were initiated into 
this society by baptism; they had their specifically 
Christian meetings, with a symbol of brotherhood, the 
Eucharist; they were united by the same doctrine, 

11 Acts ii. 42; iv. 34. 

12 1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 15; Gal. i. 7; 1 Cor. xiv. 37; 
2 Cor. xi. 28. 

is 1 Cor. v. 2; 2 Thess. iii. 16; 1 Tim. i. 20; 2 Cor. ii. 10; 
2 Cor. xiii. 2. 

i* 1 Cor. vii; xi. 2; xiv. 26-34; 2 Cor. ii. 9; vii. 15. 
is 1 Cor. xv. 3. 
is 2 Cor. xiii. 10. 



40 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



and the "same fellowship of the Apostles;" and they 
worked for the same spiritual end. 17 

Dr. Hatch 18 sees in the early Christian communities 
merely an imitation of the pagan collegia from which 
they differed merely in one thing, their philanthropy. 
But he brings forward no convincing proof of this 
arbitrary statement. We are fully aware of the 
great charity of the early Church, which frequently 
found expression in hospitality and almsgiving. But 
this was nothing new; it was merely a continuation 
of the Jewish tradition. The Christians did not be- 
come brethren by loving and helping one another, as 
Hatch seems to think ; they loved and helped one an- 
other because they were brethren. In a word, their 
common faith was the basis of their association. The 
local communities were religious societies, founded on 
a common faith, a common hope, and a common call- 
ing; they had a social life peculiar to themselves. 
They came together for the Eucharist, instruction, 
prayer, the reading of Scripture, and the exercise of 
spiritual gifts. This social life, and not the philan- 
thropic idea, differentiated the Christian societies 
from the pagan associations. 

Again the collegium was an autonomous, isolated 
association, usually formed under the protection of a 
tutelary deity. Its officers were elected annually, 
and derived their authority from the body which 
elected them. It was altogether different in the 

it Acts iv. 32. 

is The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, p. 12, 



THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 41 



Christian community. The local Church embraced 
all the faithful of a city, however numerous they 
might be. Unlike the pagan funeral clubs, the Chris- 
tians formed together one organized body; their of- 
ficers were ordained by the Apostles, derived their 
powers from Christ through the Apostles, and held 
office for life. Their faith, morals, worship, and pur- 
pose were so utterly different from the pagans around 
them, that they would never have dreamed of turning 
to paganism for a type of their organization. As 
most of them in the beginning were converts from 
Judaism, they would naturally turn to the synagogue 
if on the lookout for a model. 

From the very beginning the Christians had a spe- 
cial name for their community. They called it a 
church, ekklesia. This term was well known in all 
the Greek cities, where it meant the assembly of the 
citizens. It is used in a similar sense in the Old 
Testament. 19 St. Paul sometimes uses the word in 
this sense, 20 but more commonly in a derivative sense, 
meaning all the Christians of a local community. 
Sometimes he applies the word to all the Christians 
of a particular household. 21 He never speaks of the 
churches of a city, even though it contain many Chris- 
tian households, but he often speaks of the churches 
of a province, because each town in the province has 
its own church. 22 The local church is a " Church of 

19 Judges xxii. Cf. Acts viii. 1. 

20 1 Cor. xiv. 23, 24. 

21 Rom. xvi. 3. 

22 Gal. i. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; 2 Cor. viii. 2. 



42 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



God, ' ' and a 1 ' Church of Christ. ' ' Each local church 
is a unity, a body of Christ, a spiritual Israel. He 
recognizes the danger of schism, and constantly com- 
bats it. 23 The local flock is the city community; its 
pastors are not mere individuals endowed with ex- 
traordinary charismata, but a corporate body presid- 
ing over a legal unit. 

Every such community has within it a local juris- 
diction. We see this in the passages which deal with 
the pastoral charge, in the reference to excommuni- 
cation in St. Matthew and First Corinthians, and in 
the action of the elders of Jerusalem, who sat and 
voted with the Apostles in the first Christian council. 
"Take heed to the whole flock, wherein the Holy 
Ghost hath placed you," says St. Paul to the elders 
of Ephesus, thus plainly indicating that these elders 
were not merely delegates of the Apostles, but held 
their authority directly from God. St. Paul founded 
the community and placed it on a working basis, but 
God supplied the necessary authority. This ordinary 
jurisdiction, residing in a local church, is the basis 
of the diocesan jurisdiction, which figures so largely 
in canon law; for the city communities of apostolic 
times were the dioceses of the period. 

Besides this local unity there was also a universal 
unity, a Church Catholic, composed of all the 
churches. The basis of this , catholic unity was uni- 
versal baptism, universal faith in Jesus, and the uni- 
23 1 Cor. i. 11-13. 



THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 43 



versal mission and authority of the Apostles. 24 The 
idea of a universal and visible Church is well set forth 
in the words of St. Paul, who says 1 ' that the Gentiles 
should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and co- 
partners of his promise in Christ Jesus, by the Gos- 
pel. ... To me is given this grace to preach among 
the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ, and 
to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the 
dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden 
from eternity in God. ' ' 25 The same notion of a uni- 
versal unity is expressed in the Epistle to the Ro- 
mans, where the Gentiles are spoken of as branches 
broken from a wild species, and grafted into the olive 
tree ; and all become partakers of the sap of the same 
root. The Universal Church is not a number of 
bodies in Christ, but one body only ; for Christ is not 
divided. 26 It is through this society that men are to 
seek the kingdom of God. 1 ■ What shall we do?" say 
the Jews to St. Peter after listening to his first ser- 
mon. "Do penance, believe, and be baptized," is his 
answer. And St. John repeats the same teaching: 
' ' That which we have seen and have heard, we declare 
to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; 
and our fellowship is with the Father, and with His 
Son, Jesus Christ." 27 
Baptism with St. Paul has two significations. It 

24 Gal. iii. 29; Eph. iv. 11, 12. 

25Eph. iii. 6-9. 

26 Eph. i. 22 ; 1 Cor. i. 

2T John i. 3. 



44 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



is the source of sanctification 28 and the rite of initia- 
tion into the visible Church. 29 As all must receive 
baptism, so all must be incorporated into the body of 
Christ. This body is not an invisible Church of the 
just, as Luther taught in the sixteenth century, or as 
Sohm teaches in the twentieth, but a visible society, 
having different classes of visible members, such as 
prophets, teachers, and evangelists. 

St. Paul never expressly treats of the relation be- 
tween the particular and the Universal Church, and 
at times it is difficult to determine which Church he 
has in view. The local Church is the Body of Christ, 
and the Church of God; the Universal Church is also 
the Body of Christ and the Church of God. A mem- 
ber of the local Church is by the very fact a member 
of the Universal Church, because membership in both 
is acquired by baptism. 

There is not a single passage in all the New Testa- 
ment which upholds the theory of Dr. Hatch, viz., 
that association among those who believed was a mat- 
ter of free choice in the primitive Church. For St. 
Paul is ever insisting upon the fact that Christians 
form a Body of Christ — a visible body which one 
enters by the sacrament of baptism. He describes in 
detail its various members, apostles, prophets, teach- 
ers, wonder-workers, and simple faithful; all are 
members of the body and of one another. If associ- 

28Eph. v. 27; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. vi. 15. 
29 l Cor. xii. 



THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 45 



ation is not a primary duty of the Christian life, then 
we are not baptized into the visible mystical body of 
Christ; and it is mere idealism on St. Paul's part to 
think we are. The very texts that Dr. Hatch quotes 
refute his thesis. He speaks of those "who separate 
themselves," citing the Epistle of St. Jude. But he 
fails to see that the Apostle condemns their schism, 
declaring them ' ' sensual men, having not the Spirit. ' ' 
Dr. Hatch might just as well cite the schisms at Cor- 
inth to prove that unity was not required in the local 
churches, or the intrigues of the Judaizers to prove 
that Christianity was but a new phase of the Mosaic 
law. 

In many places of the ancient world the govern- 
ment was originally in the hands of a council com- 
posed of the heads of families. Traces of this primi- 
tive system survived in the Senate in Rome, in the 
Gerousia of Sparta, and in the Sanhedrim of the 
Jews. Given this senatorial method of communal 
government among both Jews and Gentiles, it was 
natural that the first Christian communities should 
be organized on the same plan. Speaking of St. Paul 
and St. Barnabas, St. Luke tells us that returning 
from their first apostolic journey, "they confirmed 
the souls of the disciples, and exhorted them to con- 
tinue in the faith . . . and when they had ordained 
to them elders in every church and had prayed with 
fasting, they commended them to the Lord." 30 St. 
so Acts xiv. 20-22. 



46 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Paul followed the same plan upon his subsequent mis- 
sions. Elders are spoken of at Jerusalem and in the 
church of Pontus, Galatia, Asia, Cappadocia, Bi- 
thynia, Crete, and the Jewish communities of the dis- 
persion. 31 The letters of Clement, Polycarp, and Ig- 
natius prove beyond doubt that the presbyteral col- 
lege was a universal institution before the close of the 
apostolic period. St. Luke tells us that St. Paul and 
St. Barnabas were sent to carry alms from Antioch 
to the elders at Jerusalem, 32 though he says nothing 
of the appointment of these elders or of their posi- 
tion in the community. We know, however, that 
these elders were superiors of some kind in the 
Church. At the Council of Jerusalem, we find the 
Apostles and the elders assembled to discuss the ques- 
tion raised by the Judaizers, viz., that salvation could 
not be obtained without circumcision. This Council 
was held in the presence of all the faithful, but it is 
clear that the Apostles and elders alone were judges 
in the matter. There is no evidence whatever for the 
theory of Dr. Lindsay, that the authority in the early 
Christian communities was democratic. It is true 
that the laity were allowed great latitude in the mat- 
ter of elections. The seven deacons were elected by 
popular vote at Jerusalem, although their ordination 
was reserved to the Apostles. The bishops were sim- 
ilarly elected as late as the third century. In gen- 
eral, the assembly had a voice in all matters of pru- 

si 1 Peter i. 1; v. 1; James v; Titus i. 5. 
32 Acts xi. 28-30. 



THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 47 



dence and consultation, but never in the deciding of 
dogmatic questions nor in the interpreting of the 
Divine Law. 

It is clear from the Council of Jerusalem that the 
elders held a magisterial and legislative jurisdiction; 
their title was not merely a title of honor, but an 
ecclesiastical office. Again, we read of the elders dis- 
cussing with St. Paul the state of affairs at Jerusalem 
as fathers of the community, 33 and of their anointing 
the sick with oil in the name of the Lord in the Epis- 
tle of St. James. 34 Both these instances prove that 
the elders were a ruling order in the community. 
They consulted for the peace and edification of the 
community, administered its financial resources, en- 
joyed a magisterial jurisdiction, and ministered at 
least some of the sacraments to the faithful. 

The position of the elders in the Pauline Churches 
is set forth in St. Paul's discourse to the elders of 
Ephesus. 35 They are the spiritual superiors of the 
local church ; they are shepherds feeding and oversee- 
ing the flocks; their magisterial authority occupies 
the foremost place in the discourse; they have been 
placed by the Holy Ghost as stewards in the Church 
to oversee the faithful. At Jerusalem the elders de- 
cide a question of faith ; in Ephesus we find them 
teaching the Gospel preached to them by St. Paul. 
In his letter to Timothy 36 the Apostle speaks of the 
elders laboring zealously in the word and in teaching. 

33 Acts xxi. 23, 24. ss Acts xx. 28-31. 

34 James v. 14, 15. 36 i Tim. v. 17-22. 



50 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



(the Apostles) appointed their first fruits to be over- 
seers and deacons unto those that should believe." 
This is a clear and explicit testimony from one who 
wrote only thirty years after the death of St. Paul. 
The writer speaks in the name of the Reman Church, 
which must certainly have known of the organization 
set up by the Apostles throughout Christendom. 
Moreover, he wrote to the Church of Corinth, which 
held direct relationship with all the other Pauline 
churches, and in which St. Paul himself had lived for 
eighteen months. St. Clement proves conclusively 
that the bishops have a divine right to rule, and that, 
therefore, the people have no right whatever to set 
them aside. He also incidentally alludes to the 
bishop 's right of consecrating the Eucharist, i. e., i ' to 
offer the gifts blamelessly and holily." 

The Didache, or The Doctrine of the Twelve Apos- 
tles, 4 " 3 says: "On the Lord's Day, gather yourselves 
together, break bread and give thanks, first confess- 
ing your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. . . . 
Elect for yourselves, therefore, overseers and deacons 
worthy of the law," etc. The writer clearly con- 
siders the Eucharist a sacrifice, and consequently 
urges the election of worthy overseers to offer up this 
sacrifice to the Lord. The overseer must be meek, 
disinterested, truthful and approved. His teaching 
must be tested by the rule of tradition, for "whoever 
shall come and teach you those things that have been 
said before, receive him; but if the teacher himself 

« XIV; XVI. 



THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 51 



be perverted and teach a different doctrine to the 
destruction thereof, hear him not. ' ' 

Some rationalistic scholars, like Harnack and Re- 
ville, have argued from the Didache that the ministry 
of the word did not originally belong to the local 
superiors, but was taken over by them gradually as 
the prophets died out. But as a matter of fact, the 
Didache gives not the slightest hint that the local 
elders or bishops were encroaching on the domain of 
the prophets, or that the prophets were dying out at 
this time. The episcopate was an office from the be- 
ginning of Christianity, whereas prophecy was never 
more than a gift or charisma. The bishops taught in 
virtue of the power given them by the Holy Ghost, 
whereas the prophets taught merely as an instrument 
of revelation. 

There is no proof in the New Testament or in 
primitive writers of Dr. Hatch's theory of a purely 
administrative episcopate. In all the first century 
documents, which refer to overseers, there are many 
references to their functions as pastors, teachers, and 
liturgical ministers, but not one reference to their 
being financial administrators. History proves that 
it was in this very matter of money, which Dr. Hatch 
considers essential, that temptations were greatest ; yet 
the New Testament writers insist on every qualifica- 
tion in episcopal candidates, except that of a good 
administrator. 

We learn from St. Paul, the Didache, St. Polycarp, 
St. Ignatius, and St. Clement that the deacons as- 



52 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



sisted the overseers in all the episcopal functions, in 
discipline, teaching, liturgy, and administration. 
When a deacon preaches at the present day, he does 
so in virtue of the authority delegated to him by the 
bishop. But it does not seem to have been so in the 
beginning. In Jerusalem the deacons were the first 
localized superiors, and therefore must either have 
held to a certain extent the ordinary jurisdiction of 
the church or diocese, or have labored with the au- 
thority delegated to them by the Apostles. With the 
imposition of hands, they seemed to have received 
orders and jurisdiction for their higher duties. 

As far as we can trace the appointment to ecclesi- 
astical office in apostolic times, we find everywhere 
the same theory: all power comes from Christ by 
transmission, and the instrument of transmission is 
imposition of hands. 44 

When St. Paul tells Titus "to establish elders in 
all the cities of Crete," he evidently orders him to 
organize a diocesan church in every city, as St. Paul 
himself had done in the provinces of Cilicia, Asia, and 
Macedonia. Titus is therefore not a diocesan bishop, 
but an apostolic delegate, exercising a super-episcopal 
jurisdiction over all the churches of Crete. It is very 
probable that Timothy in like manner was not the 
diocesan bishop of Ephesus, but a legate exercising an 
authority over all or the greater part of Proconsular 
Asia. We know, moreover, that St. Paul sent his dis- 

44 Acts vi; xiv. 22; Titus i; 1 Tim. iii; v. 22; Acts xiii; 
2 Tim. i. 6. 



THE GOVERNMENT OP THE CHURCH 53 



ciples to exercise similar missions in Corinth, Phil- 
ippi, Thessalonica, Galatia, and Dalmatia. Often 
these legates were sent not to an individual church, 
but to a whole province. Even when a city is men- 
tioned, it is usually the metropolis of a large district, 
so that even in this case the legate's jurisdiction was 
much wider than that of the local clergy. 

As far as we can judge from the evidence at hand, 
the elders were not generally allowed to ordain can- 
didates for office. Ordination, when necessary, seems 
to have been conferred by St. Paul or his disciples 
during their frequent visits to the Christian commu- 
nities. In the matter of jurisdiction, however, the 
elders appeared to have enjoyed true episcopal au- 
thority, if not individually, at least as a corporate 
body. 

In the churches founded by St. Paul there is no 
certain trace of a monarchical bishop before the 
death of the Apostle. All the documents speak only 
of a hierarchy of two grades, overseers and deacons, 
but not one word of a diocesan, monarchical episco- 
pate. As late as the middle of the second century, 
many of the Roman provinces possessed only a single 
monarchical bishop. About the time of St. Ignatius, 
the monarchical episcopate was practically confined 
to the Pauline Churches of Asia Minor, and the four 
great patriarchal sees. But while St. Paul lived, all 
the churches of Asia Minor were governed by a cor- 
porate jurisdiction. 

St. Jerome, in his commentary of the Epistle of 



54 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Titus, maintains that the words presbyter and bishop 
are synonymous in the New Testament ; the first pres- 
byters therefore were bishops. Each church was 
ruled by a college of these presbyter-bishops in the 
beginning; but the monarchical was afterwards sub- 
stituted for the collegiate episcopate under stress of 
circumstances. The change was made by a law of the 
Universal Church, which took the shape of a binding 
custom. In his own day bishops were superior to 
presbyters, not only in jurisdiction, but also in 
orders. 

Some non-Catholic scholars maintain that the 
magisterial authority of the local clergy arose from 
the fact that they assumed the ministry of the 
prophets, but the texts cited by no means prove their 
point. There is no evidence, either in apostolic or 
sub-apostolic times, to show that the prophets ever en- 
joyed any jurisdiction. The prophetic ministry, ac- 
cording to St. Paul, was a means of edification, but 
never a pastorate of the flock. The presbyter-bishops 
were appointed by the Holy Ghost to teach in the 
name of Christ, whereas the prophets always claimed 
a hearing on the basis of immediate inspiration. The 
two ministries, therefore, were totally different in 
kind. The prophetic was based on an extraordinary 
charisma; the pastoral on a divine authority trans- 
mitted from Christ through the Apostles. The min- 
istry of the prophets practically disappeared before 
the end of the first century. As the Church became 
well established, its necessity was no longer felt, and 



THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 55 



the abuses to which it was liable, either from false 
prophets or from disagreement with local superiors, 
soon rendered it unnecessary and even hurtful to the 
religious life of the Church. 



CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN LAW 1 



Charles Boucaud, the eminent professor of the 
Catholic University of Lyons, has written a most in- 
teresting study on the beginnings of the canon law, 
and the changes effected in the old Roman law by 
the teachings of Christianity. As early as 1837 
Frederic Ozanam wrote an article in the Univers 
calling attention to the political and intellectual influ- 
ence of Christianity upon the science of law. Later 
on, in his History of the Civilization of the Fifth 
Century, he gave an excellent outline of the history 
of the Roman law, making special mention of the 
Christian spirit manifested in the laws of the first 
Christian emperors. About the same time, the emi- 
nent French jurisconsult Troplong published at Paris 
(1843) a work entitled The Influence of Christianity 
on the 'Roman Civil Law. In this brochure he showed 
how the teachings of Christianity had transformed 
the juridical ideas of ancient Rome. His general 
thesis was bitterly contested by the historic school, 
particularly by Padeletti. Indeed, for many years it 
was commonly taught in the schools that the Roman 
law was practically unaffected by early Christianity. 

i La Premiere fibauche d'un Droit Chretien dans le Droit 
Romain. By Charles Boucaud. Paris: A. Tralin. 

56 



CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN LAW 57 



The thesis of Ozanam has been taken up again in 
our own days, and defended by three eminent Italian 
professors, Ferrini of the University of Pavia, Ricco- 
bono of the University of Palermo, and Carusi of 
Rome. In 1894 Ferrini published an essay on The 
Legal Knowledge of Arnobius and Lactantius. Ca- 
rusi followed with a comparative study of the early 
Fathers of the Church and the Roman jurisconsults 
(Diritto Romano e Patristica), while Riccobono in 
1911 studied the influence of Christianity upon the 
Roman law of the sixth century (Cristianesimo e Di- 
ritto Private). Their chief antagonist was Baviera, 
a professor in the University of Naples, who main- 
tained that the moral, religious, and doctrinal princi- 
ples of the Gospel had not exercised any influence 
whatever upon the juridical institutions of the Ro- 
mans, except perhaps in the field of public charity, 
which Christianity organized; that even Justinian's 
legislation against divorce was inspired more by the 
policy of Augustus than by the teaching of the Fa- 
thers of the Church ; that slavery was not modified in 
any essential manner by Christian principles; that 
the continued struggle in the Lower Empire in favor 
of the weak against the strong was prompted solely 
by the exigencies of everyday life, and the demands 
of pauperism. Of course, we must remember that 
Baviera 's conclusions were affected by his rational- 
ism. In his viewpoint, Christian morals and law are 
two parallel lines that never meet. Their objects are 
different; the one refers solely to the future life, 



58 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



while the other has to do with everyday practical life, 
especially in its economic aspect. He upholds an 
independent morality, and declares that the moral 
teaching of our Saviour is totally distinct from the 
moral teaching of St. Paul and of St. Augustine. 
Christianity owes its origin to the popular despair 
that characterized the times of Herod, and this de- 
spair made the people look solely to the other life for 
the happy reign of the poor and the humble. 

It is not our purpose to refute here the erroneous 
views of Baviera on the origin and development of 
Christianity. Let us simply state that the Christian- 
ity of St. Paul and the Fathers of the Church is iden- 
tical with the teaching of Jesus; that whereas the 
Church assimilated all that was good in the Greco- 
Roman civilization of the time, it was primarily and 
essentially a divine teaching and a revelation. It was 
not merely a heavenly hope born of a disgust with 
earthly conditions, but a supernatural religion taught 
by the Son of God, Jesus Christ. It is false to main- 
tain that because the Christian has ever in view the 
life to come as the reward of his loyalty to God's 
law, that therefore he is totally indifferent to the 
things of this life. He does not declare that justice 
is to reign only in the hereafter, but he endeavors, as 
far as possible, to bring it about even in this imper- 
fect world. Morality is not independent of religion, 
nor is morality independent of law. A priori we are 
certain that the principles of Christian morality must 
influence in a special manner the laws of a Christian 



CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN LAW 59 



community, and historically we can prove that they 
have done so. 

That the historical problem is a difficult one, we 
are ready to admit. For, in the first place, it is 
hard to determine whether the development of nat- 
ural law and equity in the Roman law was due to 
Christianity alone, or to the influence of the Stoic 
philosophy, which had certainly influenced the 
classic jurisconsults of an earlier period. In the sec- 
ond place, it is hard to determine whether the re- 
forms of the Christian emperors were prompted by 
the Gospel, or merely by political necessity. 

We may distinguish three different stages in the 
influence of Christianity upon the Roman law: The 
first period lasted until the end of the third century, 
during which the Gospel teachings were rapidly 
spreading, although their influence upon the Roman 
law was only indirect. The second period lasted 
from the end of the third century until the middle of 
the fifth. Christianity had now become the official 
religion of the State, and consequently directly af- 
fected the Roman civilization of the time. The Theo- 
dosian Code, promulgated by the Emperors Theodo- 
sius II and Valentinian III in 438, clearly witnessed 
to the growing influence of the Gospel. The third 
period extended to the time of Justinian in the sixth 
century, and was undoubtedly a time of triumph for 
Christian principles. 

First Period. Every student of early Church his- 
tory knows of the remarkable spread of Christianity 



60 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



during the first three centuries. Even before the time 
of Constantine, we read of certain emperors being fa- 
vorable to the new religion, or of having embraced it. 
Hadrian is praised by both St. Justin and St. Melito of 
Sardis for publishing an edict that was favorable to the 
Christians. Septimius Severus had his son Antoninus 
Caracalla educated by the Christian Proculus, and is 
praised by Tertullian for having opposed the pagan 
demand for persecuting the Christians. Eusebius 
tells us that Philip the Arab (244-249) was a Chris- 
tian. Alexander Severus was most friendly to the 
Christians, and was one time on the point of erecting 
a temple in honor of Christ. Perhaps it is a mere 
coincidence, but the fact is certain that the best epoch 
of the Roman law was precisely the reigns of the 
Severi and the Antonines. The ideas of justice and 
equity professed by the eminent Roman lawyers of 
the third century, had been held by Christians for 
over a century and a half. It is, therefore, highly 
probable that Christianity had something to do with 
the betterment of the Roman law of this time, espe- 
cially as we notice a great setback during the reign of 
Julian the Apostate. 

Second Period. On October 28, 312, Constantine 
won the famous battle of the Milvian Bridge. Two 
months afterwards he published the famous edict of 
Milan, which established liberty of worship, and put 
an end to the ostracism of the Christian Church. 
The emperor at once proceeded to make the laws of 
the empire accord with the principles of the Gospel, 



CHRISTIANITY AND THE EOMAN LAW 61 



without, however, doing too much violence to long- 
established traditions. His legal and social reforms 
were thus praised in 321 by the pagan Nazarius: 
"New laws were established to maintain a high stand- 
ard of morality and to combat vice. He set aside 
many of the old legal technicalities of procedure, 
which were a source of injury to the poor and simple. 
He upheld decency and strengthened the marriage 
bond." 

Following the teaching of St. Paul in the sixth 
chapter of First Corinthians, the early Christians sub- 
mitted their differences to the bishops, and did not 
appeal to the law courts. Under Constantine this 
Christian custom was sanctioned by the civil law. An 
imperial constitution, ascribed to Constantine but 
probably apocryphal, compelled the civil magistrates 
to hand over a law case to the bishop on demand of 
one of the litigants, and in such a case the bishop's 
decision was without appeal. This extraordinary 
power was done away with by succeeding emperors, 
who referred to the bishops only those cases that con- 
cerned the clergy or religious affairs. This was the 
origin of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction that prevailed 
all throughout the Middle Ages. In other matters, 
the bishop could be appointed arbitrator only on the 
demand of both litigants. The bishops, according to 
St. Augustine, were soon overwhelmed with cases; in 
fact they became the usual defenders and advocates 
of the weak, captives, widows, and orphans. In 368 
the Emperors Valens and Valentinian decreed that 



62 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



the bishops should take good care that the merchants 
did not raise the price of their goods to the detriment 
of the poor; another time we find the Emperors Leo 
and Anthemius enacting a law empowering the bishops 
to see that the soldiers obtained the rations allotted to 
them, and that the insane and the orphans were pro- 
vided with tutors and guardians. 

Georges Goyau, in his book, The Vatican, the Popes 
and Civilization, has clearly shown the social role 
played by the Church at that time. He writes: 
"The Church at that epoch answered all the needs of 
society; she set in order the disorganized Empire; 
she substituted order for a state of anarchy. ... It 
was by entering into the very life of the people that 
she conquered them. The men of that day did not 
regard her merely as a consoler, who promised them 
another life to offset their present misery, and to ap- 
pease their desire of happiness. She was not exclu- 
sively a guide to a good death. On the contrary . . . 
the Church, while telling men that they did not live 
by bread alone, saw to it that they had bread enough 
to eat." 

St. Ambrose, the counselor of the young Emperor 
Gratian, and the author of a treatise on Roman law, 
certainly inspired the legislation of the Emperor with 
the Christian spirit, and later on by bringing the Em- 
peror Theodosius to his knees, was indirectly responsi- 
ble for the changes in the Roman law made by him 
after he had fulfilled his penance. 

Third Period. The Christianizing of the Roman 



CHRISTIANITY AND THE EOMAN LAW 63 



law reached its full development under the Emperor 
Justinian in the sixth century. The Corpus Juris 
Civilis has been compared to the Bible for its influ- 
ence on the history of Christian civilization. The law 
codified by Justinian was essentially different from 
the law set forth by the jurisconsults of the first three 
centuries. It was promulgated in the name of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and under the auspices of Al- 
mighty God ; it spoke plainly of divine providence and 
of the sovereign Trinity; the imprint of the Gospel 
teaching was evident on nearly every page. Jus- 
tinian was not a mere compiler of the old Roman law ; 
he was in a true sense a legislator, who wished to 
breathe a new spirit into the pagan code of the old 
classic jurisconsults. Despite its technical perfection, 
the pagan code knew nothing of the piety, humanity, 
and benignity which characterized the Justinian code ; 
its crude individualism was utterly alien to the Chris- 
tian idea of charity and brotherly love, and the Chris- 
tian notion of the paramount importance of the gen- 
eral interests and the common good. 

The first reform to which we call attention is the 
change in the very notion of right. The Romans had 
as a maxim : qui suo jure utitur neminem laedit. Jus- 
tinian changed this, so that in future no one could 
exercise a right which necessarily implied any injury 
to his neighbor. The old idea of the sovereign being 
exempt from all law 2 ceased with the Gospel. We 
find the Emperors Theodosius II and Yalentinian III 
2 Princeps legibus solutus est. 



64 



STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



proclaiming humbly in 429 : ' ' The dignity of the 
sovereign requires him to acknowledge that he is sub- 
ject to law. Our power is merely the power of the 
law; it is much nobler to submit to the law than to 
command others to obey it. Our aim in the present 
edict, therefore, is to make others know what we for- 
bid ourselves doing. " The same principle is voiced 
by the Emperors Leo and Anthemius: "A good 
prince,' ' they say, ' 1 believes that he can do only what 
is allowed to individual citizens; and, if he is liberal, 
he wishes to be so according to law," etc. 

The imperial constitutions of the Lower Empire 
insist upon the divine origin of sovereignty, and 
teach unequivocally the religious and social duties of 
the State. They regard authority as a sacred deposit 
which the prince is bound to use for the good of the 
people and the benefit of the weak. They are very 
much concerned about having the laws of the State 
and the laws of the Church agree. They trace the 
origin of the civil laws to the disobedience of men 
to the laws of God. 

It is not at all surprising, therefore, to find the first 
elements of social polity in the Roman law of the 
Lower Empire. We call special attention to the legis« 
lation regarding the Sunday rest, inaugurated by Con- 
stantine and continued by his successors; the regula- 
tion of the brutal law of supply and demand through 
the arbitration of the bishops; the first attempts at 
State help in the matter of hospitals, free medical 
services, and the like. Under the old Roman law a 



CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN LAW 65 



slave was a thing, not a person, to be classed with 
horses, cows, and mules. Under the influence of 
Christianity, he became a person with certain well- 
defined rights. While the Church did not abolish 
slavery directly, she taught principles, like the equal- 
ity of all men in the sight of God and Christ Jesus, 
which eventually drove it out of the Christian com- 
monwealth. Constantine was the first to decree that 
the master who killed his slave was guilty of murder ; 
he forbade a master to expose the children of slaves ; 
he prohibited the cold-blooded separation of the mem- 
bers of a slave's family, he permitted laymen to set 
their slaves free in the presence of the priest in 
Church, and clerics to enfranchise them without any 
formality whatever. Justinian in like manner passed 
many laws in their favor. He abolished all the old 
restrictions of the laws Fufia Caninia, Mlia Sentia, 
and Junia, regarding enfranchisement, and did away 
with the social inferiority which hitherto had charac- 
terized them ; they were to have a liberty ' ' pure, spot- 
less, and perfect. ' ' He prohibited non-Catholics from 
possessing Christian slaves; he abolished the servitus 
poenae, which reduced criminals to slavery, and the 
law of Claudian which punished with slavery a free 
woman who had immoral relations with a slave; he 
settled the old controversy about the freeing of a 
slave who belonged to different masters. Leo the 
Philosopher freed the man who had sold himself into 
slavery under false pretenses, and safeguarded the 
marriage of a slave and a free person. Alexis Com- 



66 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



nemis made it easy for a slave to obtain his freedom 
even against his master's will, and recognized the 
validity of his marriage. 

The Church had fought for the indissolubility of 
the marriage bond by the clear explicit teaching of 
her Fathers and the censures of her Councils. " Dif- 
ferent are the laws of Caesar and the laws of Christ; 
different the teaching of Papinian and of St. Paul," 
wrote St. Jerome, apropos of divorce permitted by the 
Roman law. Not content with condemning divorce, 
the Church did her utmost to make the State declare 
in favor of the indissolubility of marriage. The 
Council of Mileve, for example, demanded of the em- 
peror new legislation on marriage more in accord 
with the teaching of the Gospel. Constantine limited 
the number of legal causes for divorce, and his exam- 
ple was followed by succeeding emperors like Theo- 
dosius and Justinian. 

We may mention in passing many other reforms 
passed under the inspiration of the Gospel teaching. 
The Christian emperors protected the rights of chil- 
dren of a first marriage when the father married 
again; they frowned down upon illegitimacy; they 
protected children against the parental despotism of 
the old Roman law ; they abolished the old pagan laws 
enacted to discourage celibacy; they accorded to the 
widow a fourth of her deceased husband's property; 
they favored pious foundations and works of charity ; 
they mitigated the severity of the prisons, and abol- 



CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN LAW 67 



ished some of the harshest penalties of the criminal 
code. 

St. Gregory has been rightly styled the founder of 
mediaeval Christian Europe, and the founder of the 
Church's canon law. Non-Catholic historians like 
Dudden consider him one of the most notable figures 
in ecclesiastical history. He says of him : ' 1 He exer- 
cised in many respects a momentous influence. . . . 
To him we must look for an explanation of the reli- 
gious situation of the Middle Ages; indeed, if no ac- 
count were taken of his work, the evolution of the 
form of mediaeval Christianity would be almost inex- 
plicable. " We are not concerned here with his litur- 
gical reforms, his missionary activity, his political 
foresight, or his fostering of monasticism. We merely 
call attention to his social influence as one of the rich- 
est landowners of the period. In his time the total 
area of the States of the Church were from thirteen 
hundred to eighteen hundred square miles, and the 
income he derived from them was about $1,500,000 
a year. As his biographer John the Deacon put it, 
"the Church had become the granary of the world." 
He had agents everywhere, in Italy, Gaul, Africa, 
Corsica, Sicily, and Dalmatia, who rendered an ac- 
count to him regularly of every modias of corn and 
every solidus paid by his farmers. He tells the bish- 
ops of his time that "they were to be responsible not 
only for the salvation of souls, but for the temporal 
good of all the people under their charge." In all 



68 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



his letters tie continually speaks of this vast property 
as the patrimony of the poor, and urges his agents 
never to augment their revenue at the expense of the 
poor. The bishops are to divide their income into 
four parts: First, for the maintenance of the bish- 
op's house and the requirements of hospitality; sec- 
ond, for the clergy; third, for the poor, and fourth, 
for the upkeep of the Churches. Nothing was too 
small to escape his notice. We find him writing 
about the wages of the shepherds, the selling and 
breeding of cattle, the injustice of some of his officers 
towards the peasants, colonists, and slaves, and the 
wickedness of burdensome rents and usury. Ever 
and always he is, as Pope Pius X calls him in his 
encyclical Jucunda sane, "the defender of social jus- 
tice," or as John the Deacon put it, ''the prudentissi- 
mus paterfamilias Christi." 

His teaching on riches is scattered throughout his 
homilies, his letters, his morals, and his liber pastoralis 
curae. In the first place, he sets forth in eloquent 
words the mystic beauty of poverty, and denounces 
most vehemently the avarice of the proud rich. He 
next defends the lawfulness of private ownership. 
He tells us not to confound private ownership with 
the love of riches. One can be rich without being at- 
tached to the goods of this life, although the true 
Christian must ever be detached in spirit. We read 
of his protest to the Empress against the injustice 
done to owners of property in Corsica and Sardinia, 
and his defense of the Jews against the anti-Semitism 



CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN LAW 69 



of his time. Lastly, he never fails to insist upon the 
duties of the rich man towards the poor. Almsgiving 
is a rigorous obligation, which our Lord has sanctioned 
by an everlasting reward. In a striking passage of 
his Morals, he says that "the poor are not the clients 
of the rich, but the rich are the mystical clients of the 
poor, depending upon their friendship to attain eter- 
nal life. ' ' The only reproach ever made to Pope 
Gregory was that he emptied the treasury of the 
Church by his excessive benefactions. This is proof 
enough that he carried out his principles in practice. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Sumner-Mayne — Etudes sur VHistoire du Droit. 
Beach — Le Droit Civil en Amerique. 
Demangeat — Cours de Droit Romain. 
Carusi — Diritto Romano e Patristica. 
Riccobono — Cristianesimo e Diritto Privato. 
Ferrini — Storia delle fonti del Diritto. 

Baviera — Concetto e Limiti delV Influenza del Cristianesimo 

sul Diritto Romano. 
Lactantius — Institutiones Divines. 
Rivalta — Diritto Romano e Positivo. 
De Broglie — L'Eglise et VEmpire Romain au TV Siecle. 
Claudio Jannet — Les Grandes Epoques de VHistoire ticono- 

mique. 

Godefroy Kurth — Les Origines de la Civilisation Moderne. 
Ozanam — M elanges. 

Ozanam — Histoire de la Civilisation au V Siecle. 
Troplong — L'Influence du Christianisme sur le Droit Civil des 
Romains. 

Herve-Bazin — Les Crandes Journees de la Chretiente. 
Edouard Cuq. — Les Institutions Juridiques des Romains. 
Goyau — Le Vatican, les Papes, et la Civilisation. 



70 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Ihering — Histoire du Developpment du Droit Romain. 
Allard — Les Esclaves Chretiens. 
Dudden — St. Gregory the Great. 



THE ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED 
VIRGIN 1 



The term Assumption in Catholic theology connotes 
three distinct things, viz., the death of the Blessed 
Virgin; her resurrection soon after death; and her 
entrance, body and soul, into heaven. In Christian 
antiquity, the terms used to signify the Feast of the 
Assumption — dormitio (sleeping), pansatio (pause), 
transitus (passing to eternity), deposito (placing in 
the grave) — emphasized particularly the fact of the 
Blessed Virgin's death, although by metonymy they 
also designated her resurrection and assumption. 
The words in themselves prove nothing against the 
doctrine, for as late as the fifteenth century, when no 
one questioned the Assumption, ecclesiastical writers 
were still using the term dormitio. We must remem- 
ber, too, that in primitive Christianity the word 
assiimptio was frequently used to designate the death 
of the saints, especially of the martyrs, as we may 
read in the Hieronymian Martyrology. At the pres- 
ent time, the word assumptio 2 is used exclusively to 
designate the Blessed Virgin's entrance into heaven, 
body and soul. It is employed in direct contrast to 

1 La Doctrine de VAssomption de la T. 8. Vierge — 8a Defina- 
bilite comme Dogme de Foi Divine Catholique. By D. Paul 
B.enaudin. Paris: Pierre Tequi. 

2 Mark xvi. 19; Acts i. 2, 11, 22. 

71 



72 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



the active term ascensio, which signifies our Lord's 
bodily entrance into heaven of His own divine power. 
His Mother's assumption was due solely to the power 
of Almighty God. 

It is universally held to-day that the Blessed Virgin 
died before she was assumed into heaven. St. Epiph- 
anius (+403) is the only one of the early Fathers 
who is uncertain on this point, for he says: "I say 
not that she did not die, yet I am not certain that she 
did die. " 3 A few theologians, moreover, in the seven- 
teenth and nineteenth centuries, held that she did not 
die because of her Immaculate Conception, but they 
had little or no following. 

When and where the Blessed Virgin died are mat- 
ters of mere conjecture. The dates assigned for her 
death — A. D. 41^8 — rest on no sure historical founda- 
tion. Both Ephesus and Jerusalem claim to be her 
place of burial. The scholars who declare for Ephe- 
sus, point to the fact that Our Lord from the cross 
confided His Mother to St. John, and rely on a false 
rendering of a very obscure text of the Synodal letter 
of the Council of Ephesus in 431. In very recent 
times, Monsignor Timoni, Archbishop of Smyrna, and 
others quote confidently the rather doubtful discov- 
ery of the house of the Blessed Virgin unearthed at 
Panaghai Capouli, near Ephesus. The scholars who 
declare for Jerusalem, rely upon a number of apocry- 
phal writings which are valuable for their antiquity 
and unanimity, the accounts of ancient pilgrimages, 
s Adv. Hcer., 78. 



ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 73 



such as the itinerary of Antoninus of Piacenza, and 
some other testimonies of the sixth, seventh, and 
eighth centuries. The Jerusalem tradition is two- 
fold, some authorities favoring Gethsemani on the 
Mount of Olives, and others the house of the Cenacle 
in Jerusalem itself. 

It is only in the second half of the sixth century, 
that we meet with the first authentic and unquestioned 
documents, treating of the doctrine of the Assumption. 
It is true that there are a great number of apocryphal 
writings of the first five centuries that mention both 
the doctrine and the feast, but scholars to-day are 
unanimous in declaring these references interpolations 
of a later date, or pseudo-writings of periods as late 
as the twelfth century, full of imaginary and legend- 
ary details. The chief of these apocrypha are as fol- 
lows: 

Prior to the Council of Ephesus: The Gospel of 
the Twelve Apostles; The Death of the Virgin, by 
Leucius, a pseudo-companion of the Apostles; and a 
Syriac work, The Obsequies of the Holy Virgin, frag- 
ments of which have been published by Dr. Wright 
in 1865. 

After the Council of Ephesus : A Coptic text, pub- 
lished by Zoego in his Catalogus Codicum Copticorum; 
the Gospels of the pseudo-Gamaliel and St. Bartholo- 
mew; the Be Transitu Marice Virginis of the fifth cen- 
tury, attributed to St. Melito of Sardis (+ 194) ; the 
fifth century accounts attributed to St. John (De 
Obitu Sanctce Dominee), to St. Joseph of Arimathea, 



74 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



and to St. Dionysius the Areopagite (De Divinis 
Nominibus) ; the interpolation in the Chronicle of 
Eusebius, which is not found in the oldest manu- 
scripts ; the recently-discovered Letter of St. Dionysius 
to Bishop Titus, which Nirschl has rather arbitrarily 
dated 363 A. D. ; a Sermon of St. Jerome, probably 
of the twelfth century, although Archbishop Hincmar 
defended its authenticity against a monk of Corbie; 
a Sermon of St. Augustine (De Assumptione) of the 
twelfth century, and a Treatise on the Assumption, 
which is probably the work of Fulbert of Chartres 
(+ 1029). 

The principal authority for the details of the 
Blessed Virgin's death is St. John Damascene (+ circ. 
760), who tells us that he relies on the authority of a 
certain unknown writer, Euthymius. Pulcheria, the 
wife of the Emperor Marcion (450-457), had erected 
a Church of Our Lady in a suburb of Constantinople 
known as Blachernae. Wishing to bury the body of 
the Blessed Virgin there, she wrote Bishop Juvenal of 
Jerusalem to that effect, but he informed her that the 
body of the Mother of God was not to be found in his 
episcopal city. She had indeed been buried in the 
Garden of Gethsemani, in the presence of all the Apos- 
tles save St. Thomas. He arrived three days after 
the burial, and wishing to venerate the body of the 
Blessed Virgin, had the tomb opened. The tomb was 
found empty, save for the linen grave clothes, which 
emitted a fragrant perfume. Whereupon the Apos- 
tles concluded that the Lord had taken up her body 



ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 75 



with Him into heaven. 4 All scholars regard this ac- 
count as purely legendary, especially as Bishop Juve- 
nal was an adept at forgery. His literary dishonesty 
was most bitterly denounced by Pope Leo I in a letter 
to Maximus of Antioch. 5 

Rationalistic critics like Renan 6 have often asserted 
that the Catholic belief in the Assumption depended 
entirely upon these apocryphal and legendary writ- 
ings. This is not the fact. The Church has never 
drawn her teaching from such impure sources. On 
the contrary, she has utterly ignored and distrusted 
them, forbidding, in the so-called Decree of Gelasius, 
the faithful even to read the most important of them 
all, the De Transitu Maria of the pseudo-Melito. 
Moreover, although she inserted in the office of the 
fourth day within the Octave of the Assumption, the 
account of St. John Damascene, which reproduced, as 
the text declared, ''an ancient and very trustworthy 
tradition," she very carefully suppressed the words 
"very trustworthy," so as not to vouch for the leg- 
endary details connected with the doctrine. 

There are two views among Catholic scholars re- 
garding the value and use of these apocryphal writ- 
ings. Some maintain that they may be cited as an 
historical proof of the Church's belief at the time of 
their composition, and, though we may set aside the 
legendary details, that we are to accept the fact of 
the Assumption as a doctrine handed down by the 

* P. L. xcvi, col. 690. 

5 P. L. liv., col. 1,044. 

6 Origines du Christianisme, vol. vi, p. 513. 



76 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Church's oral tradition. Others hold that it is better 
to ignore their testimony altogether, until we become 
more certain of their origin, and date of composition. 
At any rate, the Church is, in her belief, perfectly 
independent of these apocryphal documents, and could 
see them all disappear with the greatest equanimity. 
For as Dom Renaudin says : ' 1 It is not probable that 
the opinion of an author, more or less trustworthy, 
originating in the fifth century, could have suddenly 
spread throughout the East and West, in such a way 
as to be accepted by Churches widely separated from 
one another, and to have caused in so many different 
cities the immediate institution of a solemn feast. 
Such an agreement could not have been the result of 
chance. It must have come about through the uni- 
versal persuasion among the Christian people that the 
doctrine of the Assumption was officially taught as 
the authentic teaching of an apostolic oral tradi- 
tion." 7 

Some one might object that it seems strange the 
Fathers of the first five centuries are silent about the 
doctrine of the Assumption. But as St. Augustine 
said in his treatise on Baptism : 8 ' ' There are many 
things that the Universal Church maintains, and that 
we reasonably believe were preached by the Apostles, 
although they never have been put in writing. " In 
matters of tradition and belief, prescription in the 
Church has the force of law, and the providential rule 

7 Be la Definition Dogmatique de VAssomption. Angers, 
1900, p. 21. 

8 V. 23, P. L. xliii, col. 192. 



ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 77 



of doctrinal development permits of a teaching that 
was implicitly held at one age, being explicitly set 
forth in the Church's preaching, liturgy, and written 
testimony of a later age. The dogma of the Immacu- 
late Conception is another instance in point, for there 
are no explicit testimonies for it in the first few cen- 
turies. It became prominent about the same time as 
the doctrine of the Assumption, i.e., in the sixth cen- 
tury. 

Moreover, we may readily conjecture some reasons 
for the silence of the early Fathers. Perhaps they 
feared that certain heretics might cite this doctrine in 
proof of their errors. The Valentinians, for instance, 
might have used it to confirm their heretical notions 
about the body of the Saviour, which they thought 
was formed of a celestial and impassable substance. 
Perhaps, again, they may have kept the cultus of the 
Blessed Virgin in the background, because of the 
people's proneness to idolatry at that time. Besides, 
in those days of bitter persecution and bitter con- 
troversy on the most essential dogmas of the faith, it 
is easy to see how a subsidiary doctrine like the As- 
sumption might rarely have been mentioned. From 
what we learn of the clear teaching of the sixth cen- 
tury onwards, we are right in concluding that the only 
satisfactory explanation of the origin of this doctrine, 
is the firm conviction of the Church of its being a 
doctrine handed down by oral tradition from the 
Apostles. 

From the very first days of Christianity there was 



78 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



an instinctive feeling among Christians that prompted 
them to celebrate the days on which the martyrs suf- 
fered. Later on, the custom spread with regard to 
other classes of saints, such as virgins, confessors, and 
the like. The Church naturally met this popular 
feeling by making these anniversaries public solemni- 
ties, or feasts. It would seem natural for the faithful 
to celebrate in some way the death of the Mother of 
God, especially after the Council of Ephesus. As 
most of the ancient feasts originated either at the 
tomb of a martyr, or at some of the holy places in 
Palestine, it may be conjectured that the Feast of the 
Assumption arose near the tomb of the Blessed Virgin 
at Gethsemani. 

One of the earliest feasts we know of ' ' in memory 
of the Holy and Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God," 
was kept at Antioch about the year 380. It com- 
memorated the death of the Blessed Virgin, but said 
nothing of her Assumption. 9 In a life of St. Theo- 
dosius (+ 529), a monk who lived near Jerusalem in 
the sixth century, there is mention of a solemn feast 
of the Blessed Virgin which Baumer conjectures to 
have been a Feast of the Assumption. 10 He places 
the date as 507, but gives no reasons for his hypothesis. 

The Emperor Maurice (582-602), the friend and 
contemporary of St. Gregory the Great, is said to have 
ordered the Feast of the Assumption to be solemnly 
kept throughout the Empire on the fifteenth of Au- 

9 Baumstark, Romische Qiiartalschrift, 1897, p. 55. 

10 Histoire du Breviaire, vol. i, p. 267. 



ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 79 



gust. Although this fact comes to us on the authority 
of a Greek historian of the fourteenth century, Ni- 
cephorus Callisti (+1341), it is generally accepted 
as authentic by modern liturgists and historians. He 
certainly had access to many documents that are now 
lost. 

St. Modestus, Patriarch of Jerusalem (+ 634), is 
one of the oldest unquestioned testimonies that comes 
to us from the East. He wrote a panegyric on the 
Assumption, which, while full of legendary details, 
bears clear witness to the existence of the feast as early 
as the seventh century. 11 

According to Kellner, 12 the feast in the East was 
certainly older than the sixth century, "for not only 
the heretical sects, which separated from the Church 
in the fifth century, such as the Monophysites and the 
Nestorians, preserved this festival at the time of their 
separation, but most ancient national Churches, such 
as the Armenians and the Ethiopians, have it in their 
calendars. ' ? 13 

In the West the most ancient writer to speak of the 
Assumption is St. Gregory of Tours (+ 593). 14 He 
writes: "The Lord had the most holy body (of the 
Virgin) taken into heaven, where, reunited to her 
soul, it now enjoys, with the elect, happiness without 

nP. G. lxxxvi, cols. 3,277-3,312. 
12 Heortology, p. 237. 

is The belief in the Assumption was solemnly professed by 
the Armenian Bishops at the Council of Sis in 1342 (Mansi, 
25, 1, 185), and by the Greeks at the Council of Jerusalem 
in 1672. 

14 De Gloria Mart., i, 109; P. L. xxxi, col. 708. 



80 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



end. . . . Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, was 
taken up into heaven by the Lord, whilst the angelic 
choirs sang hymns of joy." In another passage, 15 he 
tells us that a feast of the Blessed Virgin was solemnly 
celebrated with a vigil about the middle of the eleventh 
month, i. e., January. Many believe the feast referred 
to is the Feast of the Assumption, but others think he 
alludes to the Feast of the Maternity. The first clear 
mention of the feast in the West is in the Canons of 
Bishop Sonnatius of Rheims, which were composed 
about the year 630. 16 Le Blant 17 has called attention 
to an inscription of the year 676, which clearly speaks 
of the feast celebrated on August 15. Other seventh 
century witnesses of the feast are the Gothic Missal, 18 
the Gallican Missal, 19 and the Bobbio Missal, which 
was used by Irish missionaries in Gaul. 

We have no information whatever regarding the 
introduction of the Feast of the Assumption into 
Rome. We know that the oldest feast of Our Lady 
celebrated there was on January 1, the Octave of Our 
Saviour's birth. It was first kept at Santa Maria 
Maggiore, and later at Santa Maria ad Martyres. All 
other feasts of Our Lady were probably of Byzantine 
origin. Under Sergius I (687-701), the Feast of the 
Assumption was, with the Feasts of the Nativity and 
the Annunciation, one of the chief Roman solemnities. 

isiMd., 713. 

16 P. L. lxxx, col. 446. 

17 Inscriptions Cret. de la Gaule, vol. i, p. 181. 

is No. 317 in Queen Christina's Collection at the Vatican 
Library. 

is No. 493 in the Palatine Collection at the Vatican. 



ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 81 



The Liber Pontificalis speaks of it, 20 without implying 
in any way that it was of recent institution, so that 
some scholars have inferred that it went back to the 
days of Pope Gregory the Great (590-604). Du- 
chesne denies this emphatically, saying: "It is cer- 
tain that the Feasts of the Nativity and the Dormitio 
of the Blessed Virgin were not in existence in the time 
of St. Gregory. Not only does he never make men- 
tion of them, but the same is true of all the documents 
bearing on the Eoman usage prior to, or considered 
prior to, the sixth century, such as the Calendar of 
Carthage, the Leonian Sacramentary, etc. But what 
is still more conclusive, these festivals were still un- 
known to the Anglo-Saxon Church at the beginning 
of the eighth century. ' ' 21 

About 847, Leo IV ordered the Feast of the As- 
sumption to be celebrated with a vigil and octave in 
the basilica of St. Lawrence without the walls. We 
do not hear of it again for a century. In 858, Pope 
Nicholas I, in his response to the Bulgarians, mentions 
the fast on the vigil of the Assumption as 1 ' an ancient 
custom. ' ' 

Duchesne believes that this feast is a Byzantine im- 
portation, which came from Rome to Gaul with the 
Roman liturgy. Kellner questions this, saying : "In 
the Gothic-Gallican Missal of the seventh or eighth 
century, edited by Mabillon, the festival is placed on 
January 18 and not on August 15, as is also the case 

20 Edit. Duchesne, vol. i, p. 376. 

21 Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 272. 



82 



STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



in the Lectionary of Luxeuil of the seventh century. 
This circumstance points to the conclusion that, inde- 
pendently of Byzantine influence, it was observed al- 
ready at an earlier date in other parts of the Church 
as well, and came into existence spontaneously, so to 
speak." 22 

There is a great deal of uncertainty about the date 
on which the Feast of the Assumption was celebrated. 
The primitive date in the West seems to have been 
January 18, for that is the day mentioned in Gregory 
of Tours, the Lectionary of Luxeuil, the Bobbio Missal, 
and in many of the ancient calendars and martyrolo- 
gies. Baumer says that the monks in Egypt and 
Arabia kept this date, and that the monks of Gaul 
adopted it with many other usages of Egypt. In the 
Greek Church, some observed the feast in January 
with the monks of Egypt, and some in August with 
the monks of Palestine. The Emperor Maurice most 
likely made the observance uniform in the seventh 
century. One martyrology of the West 23 speaks of 
January 22, and the Coptic Church placed the feast 
on January 16 (21 Tybi). 

In the eighth and ninth centuries, we find the feast 
mentioned by the Council of Salsburg in 799, by the 
Council of Mayence in 813, in the rule of St. Chrode- 
gang, Bishop of Mayence, and in the laws of Herard, 
Archbishop of Tours. In the East, we have three 
homilies each of St. Andrew, Archbishop of Crete 

22 Heortology, p. 238. 

23 Martyr. Luccense of Fiorentini. 



ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 83 



(-(- 720), St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople 
(+ 733), and of St. John Damascene (+ 760). It 
is also mentioned by Cosnias, Bishop of Majuma in 
Palestine (+781), St. Theodore Studites (+ 826), 
and St. Joseph the Hymnographer (+ 833). From 
this time the witnesses become more numerous. 

It is true that at the end of the eighth and during 
part of the ninth century, there were some writers who 
either questioned the fact of the Assumption, or de- 
clared, in view of the apocryphal accounts of it, that 
"piety and honesty both demanded a confession of 
ignorance" on the part of the Catholic scholar. For 
example, a pseudo-letter of St. Jerome to Paula and 
Eustochium of the eighth century, written probably 
by Abbot Autbert of St. Vincent, warns the faithful 
against the apocryphal De Transitu Virginis, and 
urges them "not to take its doubtful assertions for 
certain truth. ' ' The writer then adds : ' ' Many of us 
doubt whether she was assumed together with her 
body, or whether she departed this life, having sepa- 
rated from her body. How, when or by whom her 
most sacred body was taken away, where it was 
conveyed, or whether she rose again, we do not 
know." 24 

The supposed authority of St. Jerome misled a 
number of mediaeval theologians, who professed utter 
ignorance of the fact of the Assumption. Among 
them we may mention the martyrologies of Ado and 
Usuard (858 and 860), the Capitularies of Charle- 
24 p. L. xxx, col. 122. 



84 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



magne, the writings of the pseudo- Augustine and Idel- 
phonsus. But, as the Abbe Renaudin asserts, " these 
are only rare discordant voices in the general concert 
of homage rendered to the Assumption of the Blessed 
Virgin by the Popes, the liturgies of the East and 
West, the teaching of the Fathers, the preaching of 
the Bishops, and the firm conviction of the faithful 
everywhere. ' ' 

Since the ninth century, the doctrine has rarely 
been questioned. In August, 1497, the Dominican, 
Jean Morcelle, while preaching in St. Benedict's 
Church of Paris, made a number of statements con- 
trary to the accepted teaching on the Assumption. 
He was forced at once by the Sorbonne to retract. 
At the Cathedral of Paris, Usuard's martyrology, 
which ignored the Assumption, was read until 1540, 
when a homily explicitly setting forth the doctrine 
was substituted. A century later (1668), Canon 
Claude Joly managed to have the old martyrology re- 
stored, and at once a bitter controversy arose, in 
which the orthodox doctrine was ably defended 
against him by two other doctors of the University, 
Jacques Gaudin and Nicolas Billiard. Some of the 
Jansenists denied the Assumption, for in one of their 
books on the Rosary we read : i ' We must keep silence 
about the Assumption, and not honor the Blessed Vir- 
gin by rashness and lying. ' ' 25 The French historian 
Tillemont said that he was opposed to the doctrine of 
the Assumption 4 'according to the principles of his- 
25 La Bolide Devotion du Rosaire. 



ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 85 



tory, and not according to the principles of theology, ' ' 
a false distinction condemned in the modernism of 
the twentieth century. Noel Alexander also ques- 
tioned this doctrine, but when called to account for it 
by his superiors, he asserted that he had simply meant 
to teach "that the Assumption was not a dogma de- 
fined by the Church." 26 

The last controversy on the doctrine dates from the 
end of the eighteenth century. Dr. Marant, a pro- 
fessor of history at Louvain, denied, in the name of 
historical criticism, the fact of the Assumption, and 
when accused of rashness by some of the other pro- 
fessors, wrote a work against it, which was refuted 
by the Abbes Salmon, Van den Baviere, and Van den 
Driesch (1787, 1788). All these controversies in the 
long run were beneficial, as they resulted in theolo- 
gians carefully distinguishing the solid from the 
faulty arguments frequently brought forward by over- 
zealous but not over-learned disputants. For exam- 
ple, it is generally admitted to-day that the two texts 
often cited in the past to prove the Assumption — 
Luke i. 28, and Genesis iii. 15 — are by no means rigor- 
ous proofs, although once the doctrine is otherwise 
proved, they might give some intimation of the true 
teaching. The Abbe Renaudin devotes some thirty 
pages to the Scriptural proofs of the doctrine, but we 
were not impressed with this part of his work. It is 
true he sets forth accurately the typical sense of the 
Sacred Scriptures, and its use and interpretation by 
26 Hist. Eccles. II, ch. ii, art. 3, sec. 1. 



86 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Our Lord, 27 St. Paul, 28 and the other Apostles. 29 But 
he fails to grasp that the use of such types as the Ark 
of Noah, the Ark of the Covenant, the Burning Bush, 
the Spouse of the Canticle of Canticles, etc., with 
reference to the Assumption of Our Lady is merely 
oratorical coloring, and in no sense dogmatic proof. 

In a most important chapter, entitled "The Divine 
Apostolic Tradition," the Abbe Renaudin shows con- 
clusively that the Assumption is a doctrine that could 
only have originated by a special revelation of Our 
Lord to the Apostles. 1 * How did they know this doc- 
trine?" he asks, and then he suggests five different 
hypotheses : 

1. They inferred the Assumption from the fact that 
they did not find the Blessed Virgin's body in the 
tomb (St. John Damascene) ; 

2. They saw her body miraculously carried up to 
heaven by the ministry of angels; 

3. They saw her going up to heaven as once they 
had seen the Lord; 

4. They perceived her body in heaven, as St. 
Stephen once saw the heavens opened ; or, 

5. God revealed this prerogative of His Mother by 
a special revelation. 

He concludes in favor of the last hypothesis, de- 
claring that only on this supposition can we account 
for the wide and general acceptance of this doctrine 

27 Matt. xvii. 12; xxi. 42; Mark xii. 10; Luke xx. 17; John 
iii. 14: xiii. 18. and xv. 25. 

28 1 Cor. xv. 45; Rom. v. 14; Gal. iv. 22; Col. ii. 16. 

29 1 Peter iii. 20, 21; John xix. 36. 



ASSUMPTION OF BLESSED VIRGIN 87 



by the faithful, and its clear presentation to us to-day 
by the Church's ordinary niagisterium. 

He tells us in detail of the various supplied that 
have been forwarded to Rome in late years in favor 
of the definition of the doctrine of the Assumption as 
a dogma of faith, though he is very careful to state 
that at present "the doctrine is only certain, and not 
to be denied without the greatest rashness." The 
ordinary magisterium has not as yet given any pro- 
nouncement regarding its origin, and has not as yet 
presented it to the faithful as a part of the deposit of 
the faith. He hopes with many a devout soul that 
some day it will be promulgated by the Church as a 
dogma of the faith, as in 1854 the Immaculate Concep- 
tion was by Pope Pius IX. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Batiffol — The Roman Breviary. 

Baumer — Histoire du Breviaire. 

Benedict XIV— De Festis B. V. M. 

Bishop — The Book of Cerne. 

Cagin — Paleographie Musicale. 

Du Cange — Glossarium infima? Latinitatis. 

Le Camus — Les Sept figlises de V Apocalypse. 

Dictionnaire d'Arch. Chret. et de Liturgie, vol. i. 

Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol. i. 

Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, vol. i. 

Duchesne — Christian Worship. 

Forbes — The Ancient Liturgies of the Gallican Church. 
Gabrielovich — Le Tombeau de la S. V. a fiphese. 
Hurter — Nomenclator Literarius. 
Holwerk — Fasti Mariani. 

Hergenrother — Hist, de Vfiglise, vol. i, pp. 230-232. 
Kel.lner — Eeortologia. 



88 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Mabillon — Museum Italicum. 
Martigny — Diet, des Antiquites ChrSt. 
Nirschl — Das Grab, der heil Jungfrau Maria. 
Probst — Die Abendldndische Messe. 

Renaudin — De La Definition Dogmatique de VAssomption. 

Terrien — La Mere de Dieu. 

Thomassin — Traite des Fetes de Vftglise. 

Tillemont — Memoires. 

Monsignor Timoni — Panaghai-Capouli, ou Maison de la 8. V. 
Teschendorf — Apocalypses Apocryphw. 



THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 1 

In the opening chapter of Tertullian's book On 
Modesty (De Pudicita), we read: "I hear that there 
has been an Edict set forth, and a peremptory one, 
too. The Pontifex Maximus — that is, the Bishop of 
bishops — issues an Edict: I remit the sins both of 
adultery and fornication to such as have fulfilled (the 
requirements of) penance." 

Ever since the seventeenth century scholars have 
argued about the meaning of this Edict. It was once 
ascribed to Pope Zephyrinus, 2 but since the discovery 
of the Philosopimmena, of Hippolytus in 1851, 3 all 
agree in attributing it to Pope Callistus (A. D. 220). 
Some maintain that this decree evidenced a profound 
revolution in the Church's penitential discipline, 
which had hitherto excommunicated in perpetuity all 
baptized Christians guilty of the three capital sins of 
murder, apostasy, and impurity. 4 

Others hold that the Edict merely sanctioned the 
traditional discipline which was rejected by the Mon- 

1 L'&dit de Calliste; fitude sur les Origines de la Penitence 
Chretienne. By Adhemar d'Ales. Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne. 

2 Petavius, De Pcenitentia publico,, lib. 2, ch. ii, p. 244. 
(A. D. 1644.) 

3 "He (Callistus) was the first to forgive men sins of im- 
purity, by declaring that he forgave all sins." Philos. ix, 12. 

* Petavius, Funk, Boudinhon, Batiffol, Tixeront, Pohle, 
Vacandard, and Rauschen. 

89 



90 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



tanists of the third century, and that it attained undue 
prominence on account of the bitter attacks of Ter- 
tullian and Hippolytus. 5 

The Abbe d'Ales, in the present treatise, is a firm 
believer in the second theory, which he has defended 
before in the pages of the Revue du Clerge Francais* 
and in his two w r orks on The Theology of Tcrtullian 
and The Theology of Hippolytus. 7 While admitting 
that the controversy has a dogmatic side, inasmuch 
as it concerns the historical exercise of the power of 
the keys, he declares it to be primarily an historical 
question, to be decided only after a careful consider- 
ation of the texts of the first three centuries. Grant- 
ing that the Church possessed the power of pardon, 
did she, or did she not, for weighty reasons, refrain 
from exercising this power in regard to capital crimes ? 
Such a problem cannot be solved a priori, as some un- 
reasonable opponents of the historical method main- 
tain. As Dr. Pohle well says: "We strongly insist 
upon the dogmatic theologian bowing before the facts 
of history, even though they appear extraordinary, 
and seeking to acquire a better understanding of the 
spirit of the primitive Church. Nothing can be more 
unfair than to judge the past by the present. An- 
tiquity must be viewed in its historical setting and 
judged in its own light. ' ' 8 

5 Morinus, Monceaux, Seeburg, Esser, and Stufler. 
e Vol. i, pp. 337-365. 

7 La Th4ologie de Tertullien; La Theologie de Saint Hip- 
polyte. 

8 Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, vol. iii, p. 404. 



THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 91 



In Chapter II the Abbe d'Ales proves that our 
Saviour gave the pardoning power — the power to 
bind and loose — to St. Peter, when He appointed him 
head of the apostolic body ; 9 that the power granted 
to John 10 and to the other Apostles 11 was merely an 
extension of the power granted to St. Peter, the foun- 
dation rock on which the Church was to be built. 12 
The authenticity of these texts is maintained against 
those rationalistic critics who arbitrarily place them 
even as late as the beginning of the third cen- 
tury. 13 

He next discusses those Scriptural texts which are 
said to deny the Church 's power of pardoning all sins. 
In St. Matthew's Gospel, our Saviour said to the Jews 
who refused to admit His miraculous power: "He 
that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not 
be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the 
world to come. " 14 A careful study of the context 
will make it clear that there was no question of any 
limitation being put upon the pardoning power of the 
Church. The unpardonable sin was the Pharisees' 
obstinate denial of all divine power: that hatred of 
God which closed the eyes to the light, and rendered 
the soul incapable of pardon. i ' The sin of the Phari- 
sees was more of an attitude of mind than a particu- 
lar action; they persistently despised Him, Who was 
the Way, the Truth, and the Life." 

9 Matt. xvi. 19. ii Matt, xviii. 18. 

10 John xx. 23. 12 Matt, xvi, 18. 

13 Ilesch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte, vol. ii, pp. 187-196. 
I* Matt. xii. 32. 



92 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



The passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 15 
which are frequently quoted to prove the existence of 
unpardonable sins, do not, as Harnack 16 maintains, 
picture the primitive Church as "a society of saints, 
entirely opposed to the principle of penance, at least 
for grave sins, and consequently closed to repentant 
Christians. ' ' On the contrary, the author of this let- 
ter was writing to converts who were inclined to make 
little of their baptism, and who needed strengthening 
against all thought of relapsing into Judaism. The 
apostasy he denounced was "a persistent and obstinate 
apostasy. ' ' 

When St. J ohn speaks of ' 1 the sin unto death ' ' 17 
and denies those guilty of it the benefit of Christian 
prayers, he has in mind only those who have been ex- 
communicated for grave sins. The children of the 
devil, 18 by their persistence in sin, render themselves 
incapable of pardon. 

The New Testament clearly teaches that the Apos- 
tles considered their pardoning power unlimited. St. 
Peter does not despair of Simon Magus, but says to 
him: "Do penance, therefore, for this thy wicked- 
ness; and pray to God, that perhaps this thought of 
thy heart may be forgiven thee. ' ' 19 St. Paul in his 
second letter to Corinth pardons the sinner whom he 
had excommunicated in the first. 20 St. James, 21 St. 

isHeb. vi. 4-8; x. 26, 27; xii. 16, 17. 

16 Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, vol. i, p. 439. 

17 1 John v. 16. 20 2 Cor. ii. 10. 

is John viii. 44. 21 James iv. 8-9; v, 15-16. 

is Acts viii. 22. 



THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 93 



Jude, 22 and St. John, 23 are continually calling upon 
sinners to repent, and renew their first fervor. They 
certainly knew nothing of a Church composed solely 
of saints. 

The oldest witness for the Church's penitential dis- 
cipline is Hernias, the writer of that obscure and 
mysterious book known as The Shepherd. Very little 
is known about the author. Origen makes him a com- 
panion of St. Paul, 24 although Hermas' picture of the 
Roman Church certainly does not portray the apos- 
tolic age. The Muratorian fragment, with greater 
probability, declares him a brother of Pope Pius I 
(A. D. 139-154). But it is universally admitted that 
the book was written during the first half of the sec- 
ond century, although probably many years elapsed 
between the writing of its several parts. It was first 
placed among the canonical Scriptures; later on it 
was given a lower rank, though still read publicly in 
the churches. It is certainly an invaluable witness to 
the Church's penitential discipline. 

There has always been, and there always will be, a 
great deal of controversy concerning Hermas' actual 
teaching on penance. Some scholars like Funk 25 and 
Rauschen 26 think him opposed to all ecclesiastical 
reconciliation after baptism ; others like Stahl 27 con- 

22 Jude xxii. 23. 

23 Apoc. ii. iii. 

24 Comm. in Bom., x. 31; P. G. xiv, col. 1282. 

25 Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, vol. i, p. 171 et seq. 

26 Eucharist and Penance, pp. 155-159. 

27 Patristische Untersuchungen, vol. i, pp. 295, 296. 



94: STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



sider The Shepherd a manifesto of the anti-Mon- 
tanistic party. Our author declares both these hy- 
potheses untenable, the first because it contradicts the 
very text, and the second because it is founded upon 
an anachronism. Montanism was non-existent in 
Hermas' time. 

His own theory, based on the text of the Third 
Vision, the Fourth Commandment, and the Eighth 
and Ninth Parables, is as follows: Hermas excludes 
no sincere penitent from the benefit of pardon. He 
repeats this time and time again. 28 He asserts, how- 
ever, that some are so deeply rooted in sin that an 
extraordinary effort is required on their part to be 
freed therefrom. It is a fact that all sinners do not 
make this effort. Hermas strongly urges them to re- 
pent, and plainly sets forth the malice of those who 
refuse to do so. His encratism is not the encratism 
of Marcion, 29 but the fervent practice of the Christian 
law — a question of personal fervor, and not of ecclesi- 
astical discipline. 30 If he speaks of apostates being 
without hope, 31 it is only because they persist in 
their apostasy and blasphemy. Our author writes: 
' 'After as before baptism, the only certain sign of 
damnation is absolute obstinacy in sin. 32 This is the 
doctrine of the Gospel — a distinct echo of the anath- 

28 Vis. iii, 3, 3-7. Com. iv, 3, 7. Sim. viii, 6, 6; ix, 7, 2; 
33, 3. 

29 Tertullian, Adv. Marc, i, 29; iv, 34. La Theologie de 
Tertullien, p. 460 et seq. 

so Page 99. 
si Sim. ix, 26. 
32 Vis. iii, 7, 2. 



THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 95 



ema pronounced by Christ upon the sin against the 
Holy Ghost." 

The Abbe d'Ales asserts against Funk that the idea 
of the Church being the dispenser of the pardoning 
power is clearly set forth in the pages of The Shep- 
herd, although nowhere does it take the explicit form 
of a sacerdotal judgment. The Shepherd, although 
not an official document, is of the highest importance, 
because it reveals the mind of the Roman clergy of 
the second century. 

' ' The Church in her universal call to salvation, had 
ever in mind the various classes of people who made 
up her fold. She judged it inopportune to tell the 
catechumens in advance all their chances of rehabilita- 
tion, if they sinned after baptism. To baptized Chris- 
tians who relapsed after baptism into sins like adultery, 
apostasy, or idolatry, she offered once, by means of 
penance, not only the divine pardon, but pardon 
through the ministry of the Church. At the same 
time she took good care not to tell them that this pen- 
ance could be renewed. She never despaired of the 
relapsed sinner, but always taught that whoever de- 
sired to do penance could regain thereby the grace of 
God." 33 

The Didache 34 urges the Christian to confess his 
sins in Church, and not to dare enter the assembly 
with a bad conscience. It speaks of a confession of 
sins preliminary to the Eucharistic sacrifice, and rec- 

33 Page 113. 

34 4, 14; 14, 1; 15, 3. 



96 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



ommends fraternal correction to bring about the re- 
pentance of sinners. 

St. Clement of Rome, 35 speaking of the sins of dis- 
cord and insubordination at Corinth, adjures the 
guilty ones not to harden their hearts, but to repent 
of their iniquity. He declares that their amendment 
lies in submission to their priests, the doctors of 
penance; that humility is the way of salvation; that 
the center of Christian hope is the fold of Christ, His 
Church. 30 

St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: " Where there is 
anger and division, God is not; but whoever does 
penance and returns to the unity of God around the 
bishop's seat, is assured the grace of Jesus Christ to 
deliver him from every bond. ' ' 37 

St. Polycarp characterizes the ministry of the 
priests as a ministry of charity and mercy towards 
all. It requires, he tells us, " sweetness, impartiality, 
just judgment, disinterestedness, reserve in accepting 
accusations, and slowness in condemning. He prays 
God that he may give the apostate priest Valens and 
his wife the grace of true repentance. 38 

We read in St. Irenaeus 39 that the Gnostic Cerdon 
was admitted to penance about the year 140, and in 
Tertullian 40 that Marcion was received back more 
than once before his final excommunication. St. 

35Epis. ad Cor., viii, 5; 1, 5-51; Hi, 1; lvii, 1, 2. 

se Page 117. 

37 Philadel., iii, 1, 2. 

ss Philip, vi. 1, 2; xi. 1-4. 

39 Adv. Hcer., iii, 4; P. G. vii, col. 857. 

40 Be Prces, 30. 



THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 97 



Irenseus does indeed first assert that eternal flames 
will be the lot of every apostate, but a few lines fur- 
ther on he adds that 4 'hell awaits all those who perse- 
vere in their apostasy without repentance. ' ' 41 He 
does not broach the question of the remission of sins 
by an ecclesiastical ministry, but his silence is easily 
understood, once we remember how little space he 
gives in his writings to the doctrine of the sacraments. 
He makes but two allusions at most to the sacrament 
of baptism in his Adversus Hcereses.* 2 St. Justin 
Martyr declares that there is pardon in heaven for all 
repentant sinners. In explaining to the Jew Trypho 
that apostates will be lost forever unless they repent, 
he gives us to understand that if they do repent they 
will be saved. 43 Dionysius of Corinth 44 insists upon 
all truly repentant sinners — even apostates and here- 
tics — being kindly received by the Church. In a 
word, the constant witness of the second century — 
Rome, Antioch, Corinth, and Alexandria — tells us that 
pardon is ever awaiting the repentant sinner. 

The hierarchical Church, grouped about the bishop, 
is the normal dispenser of this pardon, and the offer 
of ecclesiastical reconciliation is an earnest of the 
offer of divine pardon. The only legislative measure 
of the second century that we meet with is the prohi- 
bition of repeating the public penance. The Church's 
aim in this strict discipline was to prevent laxity by 

41 Adv. Hcer., v, 26, 2; P. G. vii, col. 1194. 

42 iv, 36, 4; P. G. vii, col. 1093; c. 7. 

43 11 Apol., 2; P. G. vi, col. 444. 
44Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. ivx, 23, 6. 



98 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



giving this institution the form of an unique favor. 
Hermas is the first witness to this law, which is solely 
of ecclesiastical origin. There is no warrant for it, 
whatever, in the Sacred Scriptures. Introduced 
probably under the stress of peculiar circumstances, it 
gradually acquired the force of a general law. 

The De Pcenitentia of Tertullian, which he wrote 
while a Catholic, does not mention the existence of 
any unpardonable sins, nor does it speak of the pardon 
of sins independently of the ministry of the Church. 45 
In this treatise, Tertullian defines penance, 46 and in- 
sists that it is necessary both for catechumens pre- 
paring for baptism, 47 and for Christians who have 
relapsed into sin after baptism. 48 He warns sinners 
that they can make use of this ' ' second penance ' ' only 
once, 49 and that their interior dispositions of sorrow 
must be manifested externally by the performance of 
the canonical penance or exomologesis, "the discipline 
for man's prostration and humiliation." 50 The 
Church is the dispenser of the second penance, just as 
she is of the first penance or baptism. This our au- 
thor deduces from Tertullian 's own words: "There- 
fore, while it (the canonical penance) abases a man, 
it raises him ; while it covers him with squalor, it ren- 
ders him more clean; while it accuses, it excuses; 
while it condemns, it absolves. 51 

45 Pages 151-168. 49 Ch. v. 

46 Ch. i. 50 Ch. ix. 

47 Chs. iv-vi. 51 Ch. ix. 
48Chs. vii-xii. 



THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 99 



In the De Pudicitia, Tertullian, now a Montanist, 52 
attacks the Catholic teaching of his De Pwnitentiu. 
Angry at the Pope's Edict, 53 which set forth so clearly 
the Church's claim to pardon all sinners, the puritan 
Tertullian formulates his teaching about the unpar- 
donable sins, 54 not as an appeal to the original tra- 
dition of the Church, as some Catholic scholars main- 
tain, but as a protest of "the spotless young Church 
of the paraclete" against the old and corrupt Church 
of Callistus. He then proceeds to ridicule bitterly the 
Church's claim to pardon all sins, for his heretical 
sect maintained, "the Lord alone has power to par- 
don. ' ' 55 Tertullian, like all heretics, denied the di- 
vine authority of the Church, and consequently her 
power to pardon. Montanism was essentially a multi- 
tude without any organic authority, its members de- 
pending entirely on a supposed direct illumination of 
the Spirit. 

Not very long after the schism of Tertullian in 
Carthage, the schism of Hippolytus occurred at Rome. 
Hippolytus' philippic against Pope Callistus, the 
Philosophumena, aims at giving a complete history of 
all heresies, and paints in the blackest colors possible, 
"the sect of Callistus," i. e. } the Catholic Church. 
His- viewpoint is different from Tertullian 's, inas- 
much as he proposes to give a picture of the whole 
career of a detested rival, while Tertullian writes 
apropos of a particular act of the Pope. 



52 Ch. ii. 
ss Ch. i. 



54 Ch. ii. 

55 Ch. iii. 



100 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Hippolytus tells us that Pope Callistus grants par- 
don to sinners of every description, especially to those 
followers of his who, repenting of their schism, are 
anxious to return to Catholic unity. The Pope re- 
fuses to depose every bishop guilty of a capital crime, 
and admits into the ranks of the clergy men who had 
been married two or three times. He gains the ap- 
plause of the multitude by flattering their passions 
contrary to the law of Christ, and encourages them 
to commit sin by boasting of his power to pardon the 
well-disposed. He permits noble women to marry 
secretly beneath their rank — even slaves — against the 
civil law, and thereby is an abettor of concubinage 
and abortion ; yet despite all this he continues without 
the slightest shame to call his party the Catholic 
Church. For the first time in history we find him and 
his followers asserting a second baptism, etc. 56 

We can easily read through the lines of this bitter 
diatribe. The schismatic Hippolytus is angry at the 
defections in his ranks, and, in the bitterness of his 
railing, witnesses despite himself to the universal 
mercy and pardon which the Catholic Church at all 
times accords the repentant sinner. It is most likely 
that for good reasons Pope Callistus pardoned certain 
unfaithful clerics, but there is no evidence whatever 
to show that he abrogated the canon law deposing un- 
worthy priests and bishops, which we know was in 
existence long after his pontificate. That he ignored 
the marriage laws of the pagan Emperors Marcus 

saPhilos. ix, 2. 



THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 101 



Aurelius and Commodus, 57 is greatly to his credit, and 
proves both his good sense and kindly Christian heart. 
"We can readily believe that some of these marriages 
turned out badly, and that some of the women alluded 
to were actually guilty of child murder ; but the law- 
giver who legislates honestly for the general good is 
never considered responsible for the crimes of every 
law-breaker. 

The Abbe d'Ales admits, with De Eossi 58 that under 
Pope Callistus there was a certain softening of the 
old-time rigorous discipline in particular cases, and 
that the anger of Hippolytus was due to the Pope's 
clear and uncompromising defense of the Church's 
claim to pardon all sinners, no matter what their 
crimes. The second baptism that Hippolytus speaks 
of was probably the " second penance" of Tertullian, 
and not re-baptism, for we learn from one of the im- 
mediate successors of Pope Callistus, Pope Stephen 
(A. D. 254-257), that re-baptism was always discoun- 
tenanced by the Eoman Church. 

We see, therefore, that Tertullian protested against 
the Edict of Callistus, because the Pope maintained — 
or at least strongly enforced — the old-time discipline 
mentioned by Hennas, 59 whereas Hippolytus pro- 
tested against an innovation introduced by the Pope 
Callistus to flatter men's passions. Against Funk, 
the Abbe d'Ales holds that Tertullian was right. The 
Edict of Callistus was in no sense an innovation; it 

57 Dig., I, ix, 8; XXIII, i, 16; 16, 42, 44, 47; XXIV, 1, 3. 

58 Bullettino, 1866, p. 30. 

59 Z) e Pud., 10, 12. 



102 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



simply evidenced the enforcement of an old Church 
law which some Catholic bishops were in danger of 
forgetting, and which was denied by the heretics and 
schismatics of the time. 

Origen was too extraordinary a teacher — he may 
be rightly styled the Doctor of Penance — to escape 
being claimed by both parties in the present contro- 
versy. Both sides admit that he declared in his book 
against Celsus (A. D. 246-248) the possible pardon 
and reconciliation of all sinners, no matter how grossly 
they might have offended. 00 But some maintain that 
he changed his opinion in the fourteen years that 
elapsed from the time he had written his De Oratione 
(A.D. 232-235). 01 

Origen tells us that "we must not despair of those 
who weep for their sins and turn again to God, for the 
malice of our sinning does not surpass the goodness of 
God. ' ' 62 He declares further that those who speak 
of "natures incapable of salvation" are heretics. 63 
He makes it pretty clear in some of his homilies that 
it is the Church which effects the reconciliation of 
sinners by means of her system of public penance. 
"What we do in secret," he writes, "even by mere 
words or thoughts, must be published and declared by 
him who makes himself the accuser of the sin after 
having been the instigator. 64 Homicide and adultery 

go Contra Celsum., iii, 51; P. G. xl, col. 988. 
eixxviii, 10; P. G. xi, 529. 

62 In Lev. (xvi), Horn, ix, 8; P. G. xii, col. 520. 

63 In Jer. (li), Horn, xxi, 12; P. G. xiii, col. 541. 
64 in Lev. (v.), Horn, iii, 4; P. G. xii, col. 429. 



THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 103 



are not unpardonable sins, 65 for the Church can recon- 
cile all sinners without exception." In the present 
life, ' ' anyone who has left the assembly of the people 
of God can return to it by penance. ' ' 66 Only those 
who sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be pardoned; 
not that the Holy Ghost is in any way superior to 
Christ, but because such sinners turn away from the 
counsels of the Spirit, Who dwells within them, and 
obstinately persevere in their sin. Every mortal sin 
of a baptized Christian is a sin against the Holy Ghost 
which merits eternal damnation, unless he repents of 
it with all his heart. 67 To be pardoned his sin, the 
sinner must have recourse to those who have on earth 
the power of the keys, i. e., St. Peter and the bishops 
who share with him his dignity. 68 When Origen 
speaks of unpardonable sins in his De Oratione, he 
does not imply that they are unpardonable in se, but 
unpardonable on account of the malice of unrepentant 
sinners or the laxity of priests who fail to dispose them 
to penance. 69 He makes a clear-cut distinction be- 
tween slight faults which are easily pardoned by the 
divine goodness, and those graver faults which require 
public penance. He looks upon every tendency to 
relax the severity of the ordinary penitential disci- 
pline as a menace to Christian morality, but he never 

65 In Ex. (xv.), Horn, vi, 9; P. G. xii, col. 335. 

ee In Zech. (xiv. 8), Horn, iii, 8; P. G. xiii, col. 694. 

67 In Joan. (i. 3), i, ii, 11; P. G. xiv, col. 129. Cf. Posch- 
mann, Die Sundenvergebung bei Origenes, p. 7. 

68 In Matt, (xviii. 18), Horn, xiii, 31; P. G. xiii, col. 1180. 
69xxviii, 8-10; P. G. xi, col. 528. 



104 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



once doubts the Church's power to pardon all sins. 70 
Whether or not he denied the right of pardon to sinful 
bishops and priests is uncertain, although our author 
rejects this theory himself. 71 The so-called conflict 
between Origen and Pope Callistus 72 he considers ab- 
solutely imaginary, for, first, the only writings of 
Origen which may be dated with any probability dur- 
ing the pontificate of Pope Callistus, give no evidence 
whatever of any such conflict ; second, the only treatise 
in which some claim to have found a trace of this 
pretended conflict, is not contemporaneous with Pope 
Callistus; and third, if this treatise is read together 
with the other writings of Origen, it takes on a totally 
different meaning. It is undoubtedly true that Ori- 
gen very frequently anathematized the sin of impur- 
ity, and associated it with the other great sins of 
idolatry and murder. But he never manifested the 
slightest intention of protesting against any Papal 
act such as the Edict of Callistus. There is good rea- 
son to believe that he knew the De Pudicitia and the 
Philosophumena, but it never can be proved that he 
sympathized in any form with either the Roman 
schism or the African heresy. 

The successors of Pope Callistus in the third cen- 
tury held the same views as he did upon the recon- 
ciliation of repentant sinners. We see this clearly in 
the question of the lapsi in North Africa, where so 

70 In Lev. (xxv), Horn, xv, 2, 3; P. G-. xii, col. 560. 

71 Holl, Enthusiasmus und Bussegwalt, p. 231. 

72 Doellinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, pp. 254-256. 



THE EDICT OF POPE CALLISTUS 105 



many had denied the faith during the persecution of 
Decius. The Eoman clergy wrote two letters to St. 
Cyprian, urging him not to admit them to communion 
until they had undergone penance, 73 but neither Rome 
nor Carthage questioned for a moment the right of 
idolaters to be pardoned by the Church. 

The election of Pope Cornelius cemented an alliance 
between the Chair of Peter and the African Episco- 
pate grouped about St. Cyprian. They agreed in re- 
taining the old penitential discipline, i. e., the immedi- 
ate reconciliation of the libellatici after an investiga- 
tion of each particular case, and the admitting to 
penance of the sacrificati, and their reconciliation at 
the hour of death if they persevered. At Rome some 
clerics, like the priest Maximus and others, were fully 
restored after they had abandoned the schism of 
Novatian, while others, like the Novatian bishop, Tro- 
phimus, for certain reasons, were admitted only to 
lay communion. Later on a council of Carthage ex- 
tended to the sacrificati the same privileges that had 
formally been granted to the libellatici, provided they 
gave signs of true penance. 

There is not a text of the first three centuries which 
can be adduced to prove that reconciliation was denied 
to murderers. On the contrary, we find testimony 
after testimony to the fact of their being pardoned in 
Hermas, 74 the Didascalia of the Apostles, 75 Clement 

73 Epistolce, xxx, xxxvi. 75 Ch. ix. 

74 Vis. ii, 2, 2. 



106 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 

of Alexandria, 76 Origen, 77 Eusebius, 78 and St. Gregory 
Thaumaturgus. 79 

The reader can readily see that this scholarly dis- 
sertation of the Edict of Callistus will prove invalu- 
able to the student of the origins of the Church 's early 
penitential discipline. Many of his conclusions are 
disputed by Catholic scholars like Funk, 80 Batiffol, 81 
Vacandard, 82 Duchesne, 83 Tixeront, 84 and Rauschen, 85 
and the brevity and obscurity of the passages in dis- 
pute will perhaps leave many of these problems for- 
ever insoluble. Most men, in matters wherein the 
Church has not spoken, will take sides in interpreting 
those documents according as the bias of their minds 
is conservative or not. The Abbe d'Ales treats the 
arguments of his opponents with the utmost courtesy 
and fairness, although, we must admit, they have been 
utterly unmoved by his answers to their objections. 86 

76 Quis dives salvetur, 42. 
7Tln Ex., Horn, v, 1, 9; P. G. xii, col. 338. 
is Hist. Eccles., vi, 34; Chronicon Pascale, P. G. xcii, col. 
668; case of Emperor Philip (A. D. 244-249). 
79 Epist. Can., viii, P. G. x, col. 1040. 

so Kir -cheng es. Abhand., 3 vols. Paderborn, 1897, 1899, 1907. 
si Bulletin de litt. Eccles., p. 339. Paris, 190G. 

82 Revue du Clerge FranQais, pp. 113-131. Paris, April, 
1907. 

83 Eistoire Ancienne de Vfiglise, vol. i, p. 317. Paris, 1908. 

84 Eistovre des dogmes, vol. i, p. 368. Paris, 1906. 

85 Eucharist and Penance, pp. 152-184. Bonn, 1908. 

86 Revue du Clerge FranQais, pp. 365-367. May 15, 1907. 



THE LEGEND OF POPE JOAN 



One of the most common historical questions de- 
posited in the Question Box during our missions to 
non-Catholics is the following: "Was there not in 
the Middle Ages a female Pope?" Time and time 
again has this fable been refuted, but, like all fables 
calculated to discredit the Holy See, it is still part of 
the stock-in-trade of the unscholarly and unscrupulous 
anti-Catholic lecturer and writer. We propose in the 
present essay to give a brief account of the origin, 
development, and falsity of this legend of Pope Joan. 

It is now generally admitted by critical historians 
that the earliest authentic document referring to Pope 
Joan dates from the thirteenth century. The earlier 
texts such as the Liber Pontificalis (ninth century), 
Marianus Scotus (+ 1086), Sigeburt of Gembloux 
(+1112), Otto of Friesingen (+1158), Richard of 
Poitiers (circ. 1174), Godfrey of Viterbo (+1191), 
and Gervaise of Tillbury (circ. 1211) have all been 
proved interpolations of later centuries. The first 
four authentic references are John de Mailley's 
Chronicle of Metz (circ. 1250), the De Diver sis Ma- 
teriis of Stephen de Bourbon (circ. 1261), the Chron- 
ica Minor of a Franciscan of Erfurt (1261), and the 
Chronicle of the Roman Pontiffs of Martin of Troppau 
(Polonus, 1279). 

107 



108 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



These eleven texts may be divided into two groups, 
the first dependent on the chronicle of Metz, and the 
second on the chronicle of Martin of Troppau. Each 
group gives a different version of the legend. 

Group I. The chronicle of Metz puts the story ten- 
tatively as follows : ' ' Query. With regard to a cer- 
tain Pope, or Popess, because she was a woman who 
pretended to be a man. On account of his ability, he 
became in turn notary of the Curia, Cardinal, and 
Pope. One day while he was riding, he gave birth to 
a child. According to the Roman law, his feet were 
tied together, and he was dragged at a horse's tail for 
half a league, while the people stoned him. He was 
buried on the spot where he died, and this inscription 
set up : 

Petre, Pater Patrum, Papisse Prodito Partum. 1 

During his pontificate, the fast of the Ember Days, 
called the Popess' fast, was instituted." 2 This ac- 
count is recorded after the Pontificate of Victor III, 
who died in 1087. 

Stephen of Bourbon adds but two details, viz., that 
she came to Rome from some other city, and that she 
became Cardinal and Pope by the devil's aid. His 
inscription puts Parce in place of Petre, and Prodere 
in place of Prodito. He dates the event 1100 A. D. 
The Franciscan of Erfurt briefly recites the same 

1 "Peter, Father of Fathers, reveal the childbirth of the 
Popess." 

2 Monumenta Oermanice Historica Scriptores, vol. xxiv, p. 
514. 



THE LEGEND OF POPE JOAN 



109 



story, adding that the Pop ess was a beautiful woman, 
and that the devil himself revealed the fact that she 
was with child. He places the event in 915 A. D. 

Group II. The popular mediaeval chronicle of 
Martin of Troppau (Polonus) is the origin of all the 
interpolated accounts of the female Pope in the Liber 
Pontificates, Marianus Scotus, Sigeburt of Gambloux, 
Otto of Friesingen, Godfrey of Viterbo, and Gervaise 
of Tillbury. 

According to Martin, Pope Joan succeeded Leo IV, 
who died in 855. His account runs as follows : 

" After the aforesaid Leo, John, an Englishman by 
descent, who came from Mainz, held the see two years, 
five months and four days, and the pontificate was 
vacant one month. He died at Rome. He, it is as- 
serted, was a woman . . . while Pope she became 
pregnant. But not knowing the time of her delivery, 
while going from St. Peter's to the Lateran, being 
taken in labor, she brought forth a child between the 
Coliseum and St. Clement's Church. And after- 
wards, dying, she was, it is said, buried in that place. 
And because the Lord Pope always turns aside from 
that way, there are some who are fully persuaded that 
it is done in detestation of the fact . . . " 3 

The interpolator of the Liber Pontificalis gives her 
reign as two years, one month, and four days, while 
the author of the account in Marianus Scotus agrees 
with Martin of Troppau. The chronicle of Otto of 

3 Dr. S. R. Maitland's translation in the British Magazine, 
vol. xxii, p. 42. 



110 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Friesingen makes Pope John VII the female Pope, 
thus assigning the date A. D. 705. Perhaps he real- 
ized the impossibility of putting in Pope Joan be- 
tween Leo IV and Benedict III. 

How did the legend originate ? At least ten differ- 
ent theories have been put forward since the seven- 
teenth century to account for this legend, but the ma- 
jority of them are most arbitrary and improbable. 
Leo Allatius 4 believed that the people made a Pope 
out of a pseudo-prophetess, Thiota, condemned by the 
Synod of Mainz in 847 ; Leibnitz 5 held that a woman 
had been bishop once of some see outside of Rome; 
Blasco 6 considered the legend an allegorical satire on 
the False Decretals; Suares, Bishop of Vaison, traced 
the legend to the wife of the anti-Pope, Pierre de 
Corbiere (1328) ; Baronius 7 thought the weakness of 
John VIII in dealing with Photius led the people to 
call him in mockery the woman Pope, and that the 
legend arose from a later chronicler taking the term 
literally ; Wouters 8 held a similar theory with regard 
to John VII and his dealings with the Council in 
Trullo (692) ; Secchi considered the legend a mere 
fabrication of the Greeks at the time of the Photian 
schism. All these hypotheses are ruled out of court 
by modern scholars, who propose three probable ex- 
planations. 

* Confutatio fabulce de Joanna papissa, Rome, 1630. 

5 Flores sparsi in tumulum papissce, Gcettingen, 1758. 

6 Diatriba de Joanna papissa, Naples, 1778. 

7 Annales eccles., ad an. 853. 

s Dissertationes, Louvain, 1870. 



THE LEGEND OF POPE JOAN 111 



1. Bellarmine, in his treatise on the Pope, 9 mentions 
the letter of Pope Leo IX to Michael Cerularius, 
Patriarch of Constantinople, which protested against 
the consecration of eunuchs to the episcopate, and al- 
luded to a rumor which had reached him that a woman 
had once been Patriarch. 10 This letter proves con- 
clusively that in 1054 the legend of the female Pope 
had not as yet arisen, otherwise the Greeks could 
easily have retorted by a tu quoque. The Abbe La- 
potre 11 and E. Bernheim 12 both call attention to the 
tenth century Chronicon Salernitanum, 13 which re- 
lates this story of the woman patriarch of Constanti- 
nople, and both see in it the germ of the legend of 
Pope Joan. 

2. In the tenth century Rome was practically ruled 
by Theodora, wife of Theophylact, and her two daugh- 
ters, Marozia and Theodora. The four Popes named 
John, John X (+929), John XI (+936), John XII 
(+964), John XIII (+ 972), who reigned at this 
time, were so dominated by them that it is easy to 
imagine the people saying: "We have women for 
Popes. " The Abbe Lapotre quotes a chronicle of 
Benedict of St. Andrew, used by Martin of Troppau, 
which says that under John XI, Rome "fell into the 
power of a woman (Marozia), and was governed by 

9 De Romano Pontifice, Book III, cliap. xxiv. 

10 P. L. CXLIII, col. 760. 

11 Le Pape Jean VIII, p. 365. 

1 2 Zur sage der Pdpstin Johanna in the Deutsche Zeit, fur 
Geschicht, vol. iii, p. 410. 

is M. G. H., SS., vol. iii, p. 481. 



112 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



her. ' ' 14 Such a document, he adds, might easily ac- 
count for the origin of the legend that a woman had 
really occupied the Holy See. He believes that his 
hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the name Jo- 
hanna is the feminine of John, and that Joan became 
Pope between a Leo and a Benedict. We know that 
Pope John XII was deposed by a Council held at St. 
Peter's under the patronage of the Emperor Otho, and 
was replaced by Leo VIII. Once Otho departed from 
Rome, John XII returned, and in a Council at the 
Lateran he condemned Leo VIII and his adherents. 
At his death, May 14, 964, the Romans, passing over 
Leo VIII, chose Benedict V Pope. 

3. It is certain that, as late as the fifteenth century, 
there was a statue of a pagan goddess with a child in 
a narrow Roman street near St. Clement's Church on 
the way to the Lateran. This statue was removed to 
the Quirinal by Sixtus V, 15 probably on account of the 
legends which centered about it. This statue bore an 
inscription consisting of five letters, P. P. P. P. P. 
Lelievre, in the Revue des Questions Historiques, 16 
interprets it as follows : 

Pater Patrum (a priest of Mithra) 
Propria Pecunia Posuit (erected this monument at 
his own expense). 

The populace, having a vague notion of a female 
Pope, deduced either from the woman Patriarch of 

Chronicon, ch. xxx, M. G. H., SS., vol. iii, p. 714. 
is Florimond de Redmond, V Anti-Pay esse, p. 182. 
is Vol. xx, p. 75. 



THE LEGEND OF POPE JOAN 113 



Constantinople or the dominance of Marozia in the 
Eome of the tenth century, were not satisfied with this 
simple explanation, but interpreted these letters in the 
way we find recorded in the chronicle of Metz, viz. : 

Petre, Pater Patrxim, Papisse Prodito Partum. 

When the Popes went in solemn procession from 
St. Peter's to the Lateran, they avoided passing along 
the street which leads from the Coliseum to St. Clem- 
ent's. Some concluded that they did so out of very 
shame, because the statue of Pope Joan stood there, 
whereas the real reason was the extreme narrowness 
of the street. 

It is interesting to note the variations of the legend 
in the course of history. While the main source of the 
two particular stories may be readily traced in every 
case, each writer seems to feel perfectly free to make 
additions and changes at will. In 1260, a Franciscan 
tells us in his Flores Temporum 17 that the Popess was 
called John of England, although as a matter of fact 
she came from Mainz. We see at once the chronicler 's 
evident desire to reconcile the two contradictory ac- 
counts of Joan's birth. In the main, he follows the 
text of Martin of Troppau, though he differs from him 
in a few details. 

Boccaccio, in his De Claris Mulieribus (+1375), 
makes the Popess a German named Gilberta. She 
studied in England, and succeeded by the devil's 
power in becoming Pope. 

17 M. G. H., SS., vol. xxiv, p. 243. 



114 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Another variation of the legend by an unknown au- 
thor 18 relates that Joan was deposed, became a reli- 
gious, and lived until her son became Bishop of Ostia. 
She wanted to be buried in the street, the Vicus Pa- 
pissce, where her child had been born, but this was 
refused, and she was buried at Ostia. 19 

Doellinger published a manuscript of the fourteenth 
century 20 which declared that the Popess was named 
Glancia, and came from Thessaly. She became Pope 
under the name of Jutta, and not John. 

John Huss called the Popess Agnes, as we read in 
his fourteenth proposition : ' ' The Church has been de- 
ceived in the person of (Popess) Agnes." 21 No one 
objected to this thesis at the time, for the fable of 
Pope Joan was generally admitted. 22 

The legend, in its various forms, was very com- 
monly believed for the three hundred years preceding 
the Reformation. Lenfant 23 cites one hundred and 
fifty writers who mention it, and he does not enumer- 
ate them all. It was exploited by J ohn Huss and Wil- 
liam Occam, and by Gerson and his Gallican follow- 
ers. 

Martin of Troppau, the source from whom so many 
drew their versions of the legend, was the peniten- 
tiarius of five Popes. The Augustinian, Amaury 
d'Augier, chaplain of Urban V, made Joan the one 

is Manuscript in the Berlin Library. 

is Rev. H. Thurston, The Month, May, 1914, p. 454. 

20 Die Papst-Fabeln des Mittelalters, pp. 50, 51. 

21 Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. vii, p. 165. 

22 Lenfant, Histoire du Concile, de Constance, vol. i, p. 324. 

23 Eistoire de la Papesse Jeanne, part ii, ch. v. 



THE LEGEND OF POPE JOAN 115 



hundred and tenth Pope, 24 and Platina, the librarian 
of the Holy See under Sixtus IV, put her after Leo 
IV as the one hundred and sixth Pope. 25 When the 
portraits of the Popes were placed in the Cathedral 
of Siena in 1400, the portrait of Pope Joan figured 
among them, despite the fact that Pius II, Pius III, 
and Marcellus II had been Archbishops of Siena. 
Her portrait was finally removed by the Grand Duke 
of Tuscany, at the instance of Clement VIII, who sub- 
stituted Pope Zachary (+ 752). 

John de Torquemada and Adrian of Utrecht, after- 
wards Pope Adrian VI, admitted the legend without 
question, and St. Antoninus of Florence, while doubt- 
ing it himself, dared not come out openly against it. 
In fact, there is not a chronicle of the fifteenth and 
sixteenth centuries, published in Italy under the eyes 
of the Popes, which does not mention the existence of 
Pope Joan. 

Since the Eeformation, Protestant controversialists 
have often spoken of "the Popess Joan as the eternal 
shame of the Papacy. " The Centuriators of Magde- 
bourg record it three times. 26 We find it mentioned 
by a court preacher, Polycarp Leiser, Luke Osiander 
(1583), Samuel Huner (1596), Aretius of Berne 
(1574), Spanheim (1691), Lenfant (1736), etc. Len- 
f ant's Histoire de la Papesse Jeanne, published at 
Cologne in 1694, 27 gives the legend in all its details. 



24 Actus pontificum Romanorum. 

25 De Vitis Pontificum, p. 119. 

26 Centuria IX, 333, 357, 501. 

27 The Hague in 1736. 



j 



116 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Before the Reformation we find few Catholics ques- 
tioning the fable of Pope Joan. The only ones that 
spoke in a hesitating manner were J ames de Maerlant 
(1300), the anonymous author of a life of Urban V, 
published by Baluze, iEneas Piccolomini, afterwards 
Pius II, St. Antoninus of Florence, and Plantina, in 
his Lives of the Popes. 28 They had so small a follow- 
ing that the Franciscan Rioche declared that their 
denials went counter to the general opinion of Chris- 
tendom. 

One of the first to deny it emphatically was John 
Thurmayer (Aventinus), in his Annates Boiorum 
(1544). He was not much of a Catholic, for Bayle 
calls him ' ' a good Lutheran in disguise, ' ' and his book 
was put on the Index of 1564. In 1568, Onofrio Pan- 
vinio devoted three pages of his edition of Platina's 
Lives of the Popes to refute the legend, which, de 
Laval (1611) says, were sufficient to convince Protes- 
tants like Casaubon and de Thou. Bellarmine made 
use of the proofs of Panvinio in his De Romano Pon- 
tifice. 29 The most complete refutation of the fable 
came from the pen of Florimond de Remond, a mem- 
ber of the French Parliament from Bordeaux. His 
book, The Anti-Christ and the Anti-Pope, although 
declamatory and full of digressions, showed clearly 
the inherent contradictions of the legend and its utter 
improbability. Baronius inserted a summary of it in 
his Annals. 

28 Vol. i, p. 207. 

2£> De la Serviere. La Th4ologie de Bellarmin, pp. 110, 111. 



THE LEGEND OF POPE JOAN 117 



Bayle in his Dictionary 30 tells us that in the seven- 
teenth century a number of Protestants began to deny 
this legend. Among them were Chamier, Dumoulin, 
Bochart, and particularly David Blondel (+ 1655). 
Two pamphlets by the last-named writer caused quite 
a stir among Protestant polemists, some of whom, like 
Spanheim and Lenfant, made a most strenuous effort 
to exploit the legend in the interests of Protestantism. 
The famous Leibnitz wrote against Spanheim, and 
Bayle in his Dictionary gave the story its quietus for- 
ever in the world of scholars. The eighteenth century 
rationalists took their cue from Bayle, as we may read 
in Voltaire. 31 Among scholars to-day the legend is 
unanimously rejected. 

The one argument conclusive against the fable of 
Pope Joan is the chronological argument. All the 
dates given for her pontificate are not only mutually 
contradictory, but are assigned to some other well- 
known Pope. The most commonly given date in the 
legend is 855, between Popes Leo IV and Benedict 
III. We know that Leo IV died July 17, 855, and 
that Benedict III was elected Pope a few days after- 
wards. On September 21, he was expelled from 
Rome by an anti-Pope, but returned soon after, took 
possession of his see, and was consecrated in the pres- 
ence of the Emperor's legates on September 29. He 
was Pope until April, 858, as Garampi has shown in 
his dissertation, On the Silver Coin of Benedict III 

so Vol. i, p. 576. 

3i CEuvres, Geneva, 1777, vol. xxx, p. 5. 



118 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



(Rome, 1749). Pope Nicholas I was consecrated on 
April 24, 858, so that we have only ten weeks unac- 
counted for in the interval between Leo IV and Nich- 
olas I. 32 It is impossible to locate in this century the 
so-called pontificate of Pope Joan. The other dates 
assigned — 915, 1087, and 1100 — are likewise histori- 
cally impossible. 

32 Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, vol. ii, preface, pp. lxvii. 



THE ORIGINAL DIARIES OF THE COUNCIL 
OF TRENT 

Volume I 

The Goerres Society, which represents the best mod- 
ern German scholarship, has well merited the praise 
of Popes Leo XIII and Pius X for undertaking to 
publish all the original documents relating to the 
Council of Trent. 1 This monumental work will be 
completed in thirteen splendid quartos of some thou- 
sand pages each, four of which (vols, i, ii, iv, and v) 
have already been published. 

For nearly three centuries our knowledge of the 
inner workings of the Council of Trent has been ob- 
tained principally from either the prejudiced and un- 
reliable History of the Council of Trent by the apos- 
tate Servite, Fra Paola Sarpi (London, 1619), or 
the polemical treatise 2 published to refute it by the 
Jesuit Cardinal, Sforza Pallavicino (Rome, 1656). 
Neither of these writers was capable of writing an 
objective, impartial history. For as Calenzio says: 
li Neither Pallavicino nor Sarpi possessed the true his- 
torical spirit, which is bent solely upon discovering 

1 Concilium Tridentinum Diariorum, Actorum, Epistolarum, 
Tractatuum Nova Collectio (The Council of Trent, a New Col- 
lection of its Diaries, Acts, Epistles, and Treatises) . Edidit 
Societas Goerresiana. St. Louis, Mo.: B. Herder. Vol. I. 

2 Istoria del Concilio di Trento. 

119 



120 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



the truth, and setting it forth in all clearness and 
honesty. Sarpi wrote to attack the Church, and Pal- 
lavicino to defend her at all costs. ' ' 3 Bossuet wrote 
of Sarpi: "He was a Protestant under a religious 
habit, who said Mass without believing in it, and who 
remained in a Church which he considered idola- 
trous. " Pallavicino, in a letter to the Marchese 
Durazzo, June 2, 1657, says of his own work: "My 
history is in great part apologetic in tone. In fact, it 
is more of a book of polemics than a history properly 
so-called. I aim at refuting my adversary, by show- 
ing his ignorance and deceit, and hope to win the con- 
fidence of my readers by proving to them that I am 
well informed. I would have them highly esteem 
both the rulers of the Church and those who presided 
over the Council," etc. 4 

Bishop Hefele, in his well-known History of the 
Councils of the Church, declared only forty years ago 
that he would not dare write the history of the Coun- 
cil of Trent, not only because of his age and the heavy 
burden of the episcopate, but because he could not 
obtain access to the original Acta of the Council writ- 
ten by Angelo Massarelli, its secretary-general. 5 

The very year (1874) in which Bishop Hefele made 
this statement, Father Theiner, the Prefect of the 
Vatican Archives, published his Acta genuina Concilii 
Tridentini (two volumes), but this edition did not 

3 Esame critico-litterario delle opere riguardanti la storia 
del concilio di Trento, p. 117. 

* Littere del Pallavicino, p. 71. Venice, 1669. 

b Conciliengeschichte, vol. ii, praef., p. vii. Freiburg, 1874. 



THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 121 



pretend to give all the critical documents, and even 
those that were given were not published in full. He 
paid no attention whatever to the editing of the other 
documents so essential to a clear understanding of the 
Council, such as the diaries of the secretary-general, 
the letters of the legates, the Cardinals of the Curia, 
the bishops and the foreign ambassadors. 

Some may ask what is the use of publishing such 
an enormous amount of original material, when any 
scholar competent to write a history of the Council 
could read the manuscripts himself? As a matter 
of fact, no one man would be able to read all the 
original documents, which are scattered in hundreds 
of public and private libraries in Italy, Spain, Hun- 
gary, Germany, Austria, France, Belgium, and Eng- 
land. But even if one man could have mastered all 
this material — it would take him many years of con- 
tinuous work — we would still be doubtful about his 
critical estimate of the various documents, which are 
frequently colored by writers who favor politically 
either Spain, France, or the Holy See. 

Before the opening of the Vatican Archives to the 
world by Pope Leo XIII, it was impossible for any 
scholar, Catholic or non-Catholic, to obtain access to 
many of the most important original documents. 
Not only the Roman See, but all the governments of 
Europe for centuries guarded most jealously their 
State documents. We know that even Pallavicino, 
who was chosen by the General of his order to defend 
the Council against the attacks of Sarpi, was not al- 



122 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



lowed to see the documents himself, but had to be 
content with excerpts expressly made by two of the 
custodians of the Vatican library, Conteloro and Cen- 
troflorino, and submit his work to the strictest possi- 
ble censorship before publication. Oderico Raynaldi, 
continuing three centuries later the Annals of Ba- 
ronius, suffered the same restrictions. 

Ranke wrote in 1836 that a new history of the Coun- 
cil of Trent was absolutely necessary, but he was 
utterly skeptical about its ever being accomplished. 
He wrote in his Roman Papacy: "That those who 
could do it have no wish to see it done, and those 
anxious to do it do not possess the means. " 6 As a 
matter of fact, however, we know that it was the orig- 
inal intention of the Roman Pontiffs to publish every- 
thing relating to the Council. We learn this from 
two letters that Cardinal Cervino, afterwards Pope 
Marcellus II (1555), wrote to Massarelli, November 
12 and December 1, 1548. He acknowledges the re- 
ceipt of two volumes of the decrees, and urges his 
correspondent to arrange carefully the Acta of the 
Council in view of their being printed. 7 Moreover 
the manuscripts of the Acta in the Vatican Archives 
are marked ''imprimenda" — to be printed. That 
they were not printed de facto was due first to the 
sudden death of Massarelli, July 16, 1566, 8 and sec- 
ond, to the well-founded conviction that the enemies 
of the Church would use them everywhere for the 

e Die Romischen Papste, vol. iii, p. 289. 

7 Pages 809, 813. 

8 Page lxxix. 



THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 123 



purpose of anti-Catholic polemics. There were no 
Protestant scholars in that day either competent or 
willing to write a true history of the Council of Trent, 
which they knew was held chiefly to condemn the 
errors of Protestantism. They would simply have 
used the Acta to frame new charges against the 
Church and its rulers. 

Many non-Catholic writers, who blame the Pope 
severely for not having published all the documents 
on the Council in the Vatican Archives, in reality 
justify the Roman authorities by their conduct. For 
they prove by their writings that they do not care so 
much for the records in themselves, as for the acts or 
sayings of the prelates which can be used against the 
Church. They take special delight, for instance, in 
calling attention to the sermon preached before the 
Council by a layman, Count Nogarola, December 26, 
1545 ; 9 the dancing of the bishops at the citadel of 
Trent on March 3, 1546 ; 10 the scandalous speech of 
Father Diruta, preacher of the Cardinal of Trent, 
May 1, 1546 ; 11 the unseemly quarrel between an 
Italian and a Creek Bishop, in which one pulled the 
other's beard, July 7, 1546, 12 and certain sarcastic 
remarks spoken in anger by some exasperated prelate 
in defense of his own views or the so-called rights of 
his sovereign. 13 

9 Page 360. 

10 Pages 507, 508. 

11 Page 543. 

12 Page 90. 

is Pages 99, 100, 133, 326, 383, 477, 535, etc. 



124 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



When Father Theiner published his Acta, non-Cath- 
olics accused him of omitting intentionally all that 
might militate against the Church, although he really 
did his utmost to write objective history. He was 
seriously hampered by a rigorous censorship, and his 
ignorance of some very important documents. To set 
at rest forever all suspicion of a suppressio veri, and 
to answer satisfactorily the fables, calumnies, and 
false conjectures current among anti-Catholic con- 
troversialists, the scholars of the Goerres Society have 
determined to publish every document that relates to 
the Council. The proposed volumes of the series will 
treat in detail the Diaries (vols, i-iii), the Acta (vols, 
iv-ix), the Epistles (vols, x-xii), and the Treatises of 
the theologians and canonists (vol. xiii). 

The diaries are perhaps the best possible sources 
for a complete history of the Council. For as they 
were written for the author's eye alone, and not for 
the general public, they are apt to be truthful, sincere, 
and devoid of all human respect. They are of special 
value in the present instance, for they were written 
not merely by the friends, but also by the enemies, of 
the Roman Curia, and their authors are not merely 
prejudiced Italians, but Spaniards, Frenchmen, Bel- 
gians, and Germans. 

A new edition of the Acta was absolutely necessary, 
for Father Theiner 's arbitrary editing rendered his 
edition practically useless from the standpoint of 
scholarship, and he made no use of the Acta of Massa- 
relli, the secretary-general of the Council, which re- 



THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 125 



corded the vota of the congregations and the speeches 
made at every session. 

Some of the letters of the ambassadors, legates, and 
other members of the Council have already been pub- 
lished, and they form, as can readily be seen, an ex- 
cellent commentary on its proceedings. Many of the 
most important letters that passed between the legates 
and the Roman Curia are here published for the first 
time. The final volume will give us all the important 
treatises of theologians and canonists — such as Nausea, 
Campeggio, and Sirleto — which were written either 
before or during the Council. They played an impor- 
tant part in directing the discussion of certain dogmas 
and laws, and they bring out clearly the full force of 
the different decrees. 

Throughout these volumes all the variant and doubt- 
ful readings are given on every page, and copious 
critical notes furnish us brief but accurate biograph- 
ical sketches of all the personages mentioned in the 
text. The editors also point out the differences in the 
various codices of the original documents, the epitomes 
and the commentators, the writers who discuss the 
theology, the Scriptural texts, and the canon law al- 
luded to in the text. 

The first volume of the Diaries is edited by Sebas- 
tian Merkle, who writes a very scholarly Introduction 
of one hundred and twenty-nine pages. The text 
itself consists of five documents, namely, the Com- 
mentary of the Council of Trent by Hercole Severolo, 
the Procurator of the Council (December 11, 1545, to 



126 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



January 16, 1548), and the four diaries of Angelo 
Massarelli, the secretary-general of the Council (vol. i, 
February 22, 1545, to December 13, 1545 ; vol. ii, Feb- 
ruary 6, 1545, to March 11, 1547; vol. iii, December 
18, 1545, to March 11, 1547; vol. iv, March 12, 1547, 
to November 10, 1549). 

The Introduction consists of four chapters. Chap- 
ter I discusses the reasons that prompted the publica- 
tion of the present work, gives a list of all the docu- 
ments edited, and the European libraries in which 
they may be found, and enumerates the seven diaries 
of Massarelli, only two of which had hitherto been 
published by Dollinger. 

Chapter II deals with the Commentary of Severolo. 
Father Merkle proves its authenticity, discusses its 
origin, character, and purpose, and gives a complete 
list of all the codices of the work, with a critical esti- 
mate of their value. He then writes a brief biograph- 
ical sketch of the author, setting forth his accuracy 
and his trustworthiness. He next speaks of the epi- 
tome of this Commentary, which Massarelli used in 
compiling his Acta, and makes a comparative critical 
study of the Commentary, the Epitome, and the Acta. 
The Commentary of Severolo is the only original 
source we possess of the first four months of the Coun- 
cil (December 11, 1545, to April 1, 1546). Neither 
Sarpi nor Pallavicino knew of its existence, and Ray- 
naldi, the only writer who has hitherto made use of 
it, did not know who wrote it. 

Chapter III gives a brief sketch of the life of Mas- 



THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 127 



sarelli, and analyzes his chief works, viz., his Acta of 
the Council, his seven diaries, and his letters to the 
Cardinals of the Curia. The secretary of the Coun- 
cil was not a very brilliant scholar, but he was a well- 
educated cleric, an indefatigable worker, and ever 
most active in ecclesiastical affairs. A man of more 
cultivated taste or greater ability — he makes frequent 
mistakes in Latin — would have omitted many of the 
gossipy and trivial details, which he relates with all 
the gusto of a modern newspaper reporter. He tells 
us about a murder and a robbery at Trent; the great 
entertainments given on feast days in the line of 
jousting, fireworks, and walking the tight-rope; the 
menus of the banquets given in honor of distinguished 
guests ; the state of the weather ; the high cost of liv- 
ing ; the quarrels about precedence ; fishing trips, deer 
hunts, horse racing, etc. 

Every one who reads these diaries carefully will 
acknowledge that Massarelli was a simple, honest man, 
although, like most of the Italians of his day, he was 
unable to distinguish between the divine authority of 
the Church and the political policies of the Pope and 
the Roman Curia. 14 When, for example, Charles V, 
the better to win over the Protestants, earnestly and 
persistently demanded the return of the Council from 
Bologna to Trent, Massarelli calls him a persecutor of 
the Church on a par with the old Roman emperors, 
and prophesies for him a miserable and violent death. 
Again, he taxes with stupidity or deliberate malice 

14 Page lxxx. 



128 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



every bishop who honestly opposed in Council the 
wishes of the Roman Cardinals, and he accuses the 
opponents of the legates of ingratitude or heresy. 
Still, it is unjust to accuse him, as some have done, of 
continually making false statements of fact, or of de- 
liberately failing to record accurately the vota of the 
bishops. The editors of the present work have de- 
tected him in only one deliberate falsehood, 15 and de- 
clare that his mistakes — if they exist — in recording 
the vota were due to the inadvertence of a sick and 
busy secretary. We readily admit that he was guilty 
of many errors in judgment, and that he occasionally 
voiced his prejudices in pretty strong language. 16 
The reader will readily pardon him because of his 
evident sincerity. 

Chapter IV gives us the reasons which prompted 
the editors to publish the text of all the original docu- 
ments in its integrity. They argue — and rightly — 
that it is fairer and more satisfactory to allow the 
reader to form his own judgment upon the data as a 
whole, than to make excerpts requiring lengthy and 
perhaps partisan explanations. The critical editing 
of the text, with a complete list of all the various read- 
ings, was in itself a gigantic task, and will prove most 
helpful to the future historian of the Council. 

During the first quarter of the sixteenth century, 
the Catholic world was talking of the necessity of a 
General Council to reform the flagrant abuses that had 

is Page 818, line 32; page 825, note 2. 

is Page 232, line 28 ; page 383, line 20, etc. 



THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 129 



crept into the Church, and to determine once for all 
the true Gospel of Christ in opposition to the errors 
of the reformers, which were unsettling the minds of 
thousands. The Popes were rather slow in answering 
the popular demand for a General Council, because 
they felt that the times were unfavorable. Many 
worldly clerics were utterly opposed to reform of any 
kind; the Emperor was afraid of antagonizing the 
Protestant princes by the publishing of conciliar de- 
crees denouncing the Lutheran errors; the continual 
wars between Charles V and Francis I made it diffi- 
cult for the bishops to assemble and to agree upon the 
place of meeting; the Popes were afraid of a repe- 
tition of the schismatic proceedings of the Council of 
Basle. 

Pope Paul III, however, was determined that the 
Council should be held. He convoked it in 1536 to 
meet in Mantua, May, 1537, but owing to the very 
strong opposition against it, he was obliged to pro- 
rogue it for six months. It was then deferred for 
various reasons to meet at Vicenza, May, 1538, and 
again at Trent, November, 1542. The three legates 
sent in this year waited many months for the bishops 
to arrive, but, as they failed to appear, the Council 
was again suspended until March, 1545. It was 
finally opened, December 13, 1545, by the three legates, 
Giammaria del Monte, Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina, 
Marcello Cervini, Cardinal Priest of Santa Croce, and 
Reginald Pole, Cardinal Priest of Santa Maria in 
Cosmedin. There were present at the opening ses- 



130 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



sion four archbishops, twenty bishops, five generals of 
religious orders, two ambassadors of King Ferdinand, 
Pighini, the auditor of the Roman Rota, and Severolo, 
the procurator of the Council. 17 The Emperor's am- 
bassador, Didaco de Mendoza, unable to attend be- 
cause of sickness, begged the Council to excuse him. 
Because of the small number of bishops present, noth- 
ing was accomplished at the first session save the 
public reading of the Papal Bull of convocation, and 
the mandate of the Papal legates. 

The interval between the first and second sessions 
(December 13, 1545, to January 7, 1546) was spent 
in discussing questions of precedence, the credentials 
of those seeking admission to the Council, the method 
of voting, the mode of procedure, and the like. The 
legates insisted strongly upon the superiority of the 
Pope over the Council, which had been questioned at 
Basle, and declared that they presided in his name. 
The motion of the Bishop of Fiesole to add the words : 
" Representing the Universal Church" to the title 
"Sacred Ecumenical Council" was defeated, after a 
good deal of argument, as misleading and unneces- 
sary. The bishops then elected all the officials of the 
Council, viz., a procurator, a secretary-general, a lay 
protector, two notaries, and two scrutatores to count 
the votes. Congregations of theologians and canon- 
ists were appointed to prepare the schemata of the 
doctrinal and disciplinary decrees, that were to be dis- 
cussed and voted upon by the General Congregation of 
" Page 4. 



THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 



131 



Bishops. The old custom of individual voting, which 
had been set aside at Constance on account of the 
great Western Schism, was again adopted. One vote 
was given to each of the generals of the religious 
orders, and to every three abbots. The Public Ses- 
sion announced the final result of the discussions of 
the General Congregations, and formulated the de- 
crees and canons. 

The third session (February 4, 1546) 18 published a 
decree upon the Nicene Creed, and another on the 
obligation of attending the Council. For about a 
month the bishops had discussed the mode of pro- 
cedure to be followed in their deliberations. They 
found it difficult to decide whether matters of doc- 
trine or discipline should take precedence in the dis- 
cussion and framing of the decrees. A compromise 
was finally effected, and they decided to treat both 
doctrine and discipline together. As a matter of fact, 
the Council published two decrees, the one on doc- 
trine and the other on discipline, at nearly every pub- 
lic session. 19 During the next two months the Sacred 
Scriptures formed the sole topic of discussion. 

The fourth session (April 8, 1546) 20 formulated 
the two decrees that settled finally the relation be- 
tween the Bible and tradition, the canon, the use of 
the Latin Yulgate, and the rules of Biblical interpre- 

13 Pages 27, 434, 476. 
is Page 20, et seq. 

20 Page 534. There were present at this session five cardi- 
nals, eight archbishops, forty-one bishops, three generals of reli- 
gious orders, and two abbots. 



132 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



tation. The preliminary discussions are given in the 
most minute detail in Massarelli's third diary. 21 One 
has only to read these well-reported speeches to see at 
a glance how false are many of the statements made 
by prejudiced non-Catholics regarding the meaning of 
the Tridentine decrees. Take, for example, the ques- 
tion of the authority of the Latin Vulgate. It was 
explicitly stated 22 that in declaring the Vulgate the 
authentic edition to be used in preaching, disputa- 
tions, and theological lectures, the Council did not 
thereby reject all other editions as false, but merely 
asserted its superiority over them. It, moreover, ad- 
mitted the fact that many errors had crept into the 
original text, and requested the Pope to order these 
mistakes corrected as soon as possible. One of the 
bishops is recorded as saying that Christ and His 
Apostles used the very words of the Vulgate — a state- 
ment which our editor questions, although it is also 
recorded in the Acta. 

The fifth session (June 17, 1546) 23 formulated first 
a decree on original sin. It declared that Adam by 
his fall had lost his original holiness and justice, and 
had deteriorated in both soul and body; that the sin 
of Adam had injured not only himself but all his de- 
scendants; that it had been transmitted to them by 
propagation; that the effects of Adam's sin are wholly 

21 Pages 476-523. 

22 Page 527. 

23 Page 80. There were present at this session four cardi- 
nals, nine archbishops, fifty bishops, three generals of religious 
orders, and two abbots. 



THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 133 



taken away by the merits of Jesus Christ and His 
grace in baptism; that the concupiscence which still 
remains in man, has never been called sin by the Cath- 
olic Church, but that it comes from sin and inclines 
thereto ; that this decree has no reference whatever to 
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. 

Most of the discussions preliminary to the fifth ses- 
sion 24 dealt with the decree on discipline, which had 
reference to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, and 
the preaching of the Gospel by bishops, priests, and 
regulars. Some very bitter speeches were made re- 
garding the duty of episcopal residence, and the 
preaching of regulars without episcopal approval. 
Pietro Pachecci, the Bishop of Jaen, and Braccio Mar- 
tello, Bishop of Fiesole, were the chief offenders. Both 
Cardinal del Monte, the presiding legate, and Cardinal 
Pole rebuked the Bishop of Fiesole on account of his 
1 'seditious, calumnious, quarrelsome, and illogical dis- 
courses." 25 They told him plainly that he was calum- 
niating the Holy See by accusing it of granting privi- 
leges to the regulars contrary to the divine law, and 
that he was schismatical and heretical in spirit by 
attempting to limit unduly the Pope's power in their 
regard. The General of the Servites was the chief 
defender of the rights and privileges of the religious 
orders, and although his challenges were at times a bit 
vehement and melodramatic in tone, his points were 
well taken. He said in conclusion : ' * I wish the Coun- 
cil to consider carefully all the privileges granted by 

24 Pages 50-80. 25 Pages 56, 57. 



134 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



the Pope to the regulars. If the bishops assembled 
consider them harmful to the Church, we are willing 
to be deprived of them. ' ' 26 

The sixth session (January 13, 1547) 27 gives us the 
results of six months' discussion in the form of a 
lengthy doctrinal decree on justification, and a disci- 
plinary decree emphasizing the duty of episcopal resi- 
dence and visitation. 28 The presiding legate expressly 
stated, in view of some rather angry discussions, that 
the Council did not convene to settle any controversies 
of the schools on questions of grace, but to condemn 
the errors and heresies of the reformers on justifica- 
tion. 29 They wished particularly to denounce Luther 's 
heretical teaching on justification by faith alone, im- 
putative justice, the slave will, election, merit, good 
works, etc. 

The untiring and irrepressible Bishop of Fiesole 
made so many speeches that he finally wore out the 
patience of his listeners. Once, when he asked leave 
to speak, the presiding legate, with a twinkle in his 
eye, said: "I will always give His Grace of Fiesole 
permission to say whatever he desires," whereat all 
the Council, seeing his point, laughed heartily. 30 

The Cardinal of Trent lost his temper during a 
heated argument with Cardinal del Monte, and after- 
wards, while asking pardon for his vehemence, got 

20 Pages 59, 63. 

27 Pages 121, 458, 601. There were present at this session 
four cardinals, ten archbishops, and forty-five bishops, 
as Pages 82-120, 440-458, 564-603. 
29 Page 108. 
so Page 124. 



THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 135 



angry again because the legate did not deign to reply, 
but merely nodded his head. 31 The presiding legate's 
kindly, dignified, and firm treatment of all the bishops 
is an evidence of one great quality of Pope Paul III — 
the power of selecting capable men to carry out his 
will. 

The seventh session (March 3, 1547) 32 published a 
doctrinal decree on the sacraments in general, baptism 
and confirmation, and a disciplinary decree on matters 
connected with episcopal residence. The Council for- 
bade the holding of incompatible benefices and set 
forth the conditions required for valid appointments 
thereunto. 

It is very interesting to note how the subject matter 
for the doctrinal decrees of this session was originally 
presented by the theologians. They submitted fifty- 
one questions for the consideration of the bishops, 
which they divided into three sections: theses which 
are absolutely heretical ; theses which many theologians 
declare should not be condemned without some ex- 
planation; and theses which some theologians believe 
should not be condemned, but entirely ignored. 

The eighth session (March 11, 1547) 33 did not pub- 
lish any decrees. The legates declared the Council 
adjourned and transferred it to Bologna, alleging the 
existence of a pestilence, which, according to the 

31 Page 100. 

32 Pages 124-136, 458-465, 601-621. There were present at 
this session three cardinals, nine archbishops, fifty-one bish- 
ops, five generals of religious orders, and two abbots. 

33 Page 142. 



136 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Council's physician, was then threatening the city. 
The bishops of the Emperor's party voted unani- 
mously against the transfer, and declared that under 
no circumstances would they stir from Trent. They 
declared, in great anger, that the pestilence was a 
myth, and that the real reason of the transfer was the 
unfriendliness that had arisen between the Pope and 
the Emperor. 

As a matter of fact, they were estranged at this 
time, and remained so until the death of Paul III. 
The Pope bitterly resented the Emperor's refusal to 
give the investiture of Parma and Piacenza to his rela- 
tive, Pierluigi Farnese, 34 and was angry at the Em- 
peror's continued interference in theological matters. 
Charles V, in the manner of one of the old Byzantine 
emperors, tried to settle the doctrinal differences be- 
tween Catholics and Protestants by his own authority. 
The famous Interim of Augsburg, 35 May 15, 1548, 
mentioned frequently in the text, allowed Protestants 
to receive the Eucharist under both kinds, the married 
Protestant clergy to keep their wives, and the princes 
to retain the stolen ecclesiastical property. As might 
be expected, this decree satisfied no one. The Catho- 
lics rightly maintained that the Emperor had no right 
whatever to make concessions, and the Protestants 
denied the power of a General Council to legislate 
concerning their affairs. 

It was stigmatized by the Protestant party as "a 

Pages 244, 248, 310, 692. 
35 Pages 761, 762, 765-767, 771-773, 779, 831. 



THE ORIGINAL DIARIES 137 



fornication with the whore of Babylon, a work of the 
devil, a revival of Papistry, and a scheme to under- 
mine the pure faith.'' 

The fourth diary 36 treats of the ninth (April 21, 
1547) and tenth (June 2, 1547) sessions of the Council 
held at Bologna. No decrees were formulated at either 
session, although for eight months the theologians 
discussed the five sacraments of Extreme Unction, 
Orders, Matrimony, Penance, and the Eucharist, be- 
sides the Catholic teaching on Purgatory and Indul- 
gences. 

Continual protests were made by the Emperor and 
the thirteen bishops of his party, who were still at 
Trent, against the validity of the transfer, 37 and al- 
though the Pope refused to consider their objections, 
their opposition prevented anything being accom- 
plished at Bologna. Massarelli remained in the city 
until October 6, 1540, 38 but most of his time was spent 
in writing up his diaries and the Acta of the Council, 
and acting as inquisitor in a number of heresy trials. 
The diary closes with the death of Pope Paul III, 
November 10, 1549. 

36 Pages 626-873. 37 p ag es 737, 757. 3s p age 867. 



CARDINAL ALLEN 1 



The old Protestant notion of the settlement of re- 
ligion under Elizabeth as the joyous rebound of the 
whole nation from a hatred of superstition to the 
pure truth of Calvinism and Zwinglianism, has been 
proved false in the light of contemporary evidence 
now open to the scholars of the world. Objective 
writers — Catholic and non-Catholic alike — have re- 
pudiated the unfair and dishonest version of Burnet, 
Macaulay, and Creighton, and have shown conclu- 
sively that the change in religion brought about by 
Elizabeth and her three ministers, Cecil, Walsingham, 
and Bacon, was due to coercion of the crudest kind, 
which thought nothing of principle, or of human life 
and suffering. The one Englishman who did more 
than any other to offset the reforming zeal of Eliza- 
beth, and save from utter wreck the remnants of the 
ancient faith, was William Allen, Principal of St. 
Mary's Hall, Oxford, President of Douay and of 
Kheims, and Cardinal. 

Of the three great Tudor Cardinals — Wolsey, Pole, 
and Allen — Allen is the least known. Yet he was 
Wolsey 's superior as a scholar, and Pole's superior as 
a writer and a controversialist. Strangely enough, 

i An Elizabethan Cardinal, William Allen. By Martin 
Haile. St. Louis: B. Herder. 

138 



CARDINAL ALLEN 



139 



each of them failed to accomplish the chief task he 
had determined upon. Wolsey unwisely lent him- 
self to Henry VIII 's dishonest scheme of the divorce, 
which led eventually to the breach with Rome; Pole 
lived to see his work nullified by the folly of Mary's 
Spanish marriage and her overzeal which threatened 
the stability of his work; and Allen in his last years 
let himself be drawn into the political arena, which 
was, as our author says, "to fill up the cup of sor- 
rows of his afflicted fellow-Catholics in England, by 
throwing into it the seeds of fierce and bitter interne- 
cine political strife." 

Cardinal Allen came of an ancient and honorable 
race of the Aliens of Rossall Grange and Toderstaffe 
Hall, in the county of Lancashire. His ancestors had 
lived on the same spot for centuries, comfortable 
country gentlemen, leading useful and God-fearing 
lives. William Allen was born at Rossall Grange, 
which his family held on lease from the abbots of 
Dieulacres, in 1532. He was educated at home, under 
the watchful eye of his parents, until his fifteenth 
year, when he was entered at Oriel College, Oxford. 
His academical career was noted for the rapidity of 
his advancement in learning, his extraordinary in- 
dustry and exactness under discipline, and the singu- 
lar modesty and integrity of his life. He became 
Bachelor of Arts in 1550, and was in the same year 
unanimously elected Fellow of his college. Whitaker, 
in his history of Richmondshire, 2 says, that to obtain 
2 Vol. i, p. 444. 



140 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



his degree, Allen must "at least, have professed him- 
self of the reformed religion," but there is not the 
slightest evidence of his apostasy: in fact, whatever 
evidence there is points the other way. A conjecture 
made two centuries after the event ought to be set 
aside as worthless, especially when we know fully the 
nature of the man. Allen's College is mentioned by 
Turner, afterwards Dean of Wells, as "a stronghold 
of Popery" at this very time. In 1556, Allen was 
chosen Principal of St. Mary's Hall, and Proctor of 
the University. Whether he ever met Cardinal Pole 
is uncertain, but that the fame of his attainments and 
learning had reached the Chancellor of the Univer- 
sity is beyond question. It is most probable that the 
canonry of York conferred upon Allen, still a lay- 
man, in 1558, was bestowed through the influence of 
Cardinal Pole. 

Elizabeth came to the throne, November 17, 1558. 
With a packed Parliament and a subservient House 
of Lords, she succeeded in passing three bills, which 
effected the severance with Rome, established the 
Royal Supremacy, and decreed uniformity of worship 
according to the revised second Prayer Book of Ed- 
ward VI. "The battle raged so fiercely over the Su- 
premacy Bill, and passions were so aroused by it, that 
it has become impossible to follow the measure through 
all the stages and changes necessitated by violent and 
strenuous opposition in both houses. ' ' 3 The Act of 
Uniformity was opposed by the whole bench of bish- 

s Dom Birt, Settlement of Religion Under Elizabeth, p. 90. 



CARDINAL ALLEN 



141 



ops, and by nine lay peers ; several of the latter must 
have absented themselves, on one pretext or another, 
for that momentous measure was passed by a majority 
of only three votes. The bill thus became a law with- 
out a single episcopal vote in its favor. When the 
Oath of Supremacy was tendered to the bishops, they 
all, with the one exception of Kitchen of Llandaff, 
declined to take it, and were at once deposed from 
their sees. The majority of the clergy followed the 
example of their prelates, and refused to take the 
oath. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge 
were equally loyal to the old faith, but Elizabeth sim- 
ply removed the heads of houses and professors just 
as she had deposed the bishops, and men of the New 
Learning were put in their place. William Allen 
stayed at Oxford until 1561; his departure then be- 
came inevitable, as his biographer and secretary, Nich- 
olas Fitzherbert, tells us, on account of his untiring 
zeal in encouraging the timid to steadfastness, and in 
giving counsel to the doubting to stand firm against 
heretical attacks. 

After a year in Flanders, he fell ill, and was ad- 
vised by his physicians to try his native air, as the 
only means of saving his life. With the penal laws in 
full force, the remedy would appear to have been little 
less dangerous than the disease. He went to England 
fully aware of the risks he ran, for he was most 
anxious to help counteract the evil effects of the legis- 
lative alteration of religion. In those early days of 
doubt and hesitancy, many Catholics were sheltering 



142 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



themselves under what was known as 1 'occasional con- 
formity." Both priests and people persuaded them- 
selves, as Allen put it later in a letter to Bishop 
Vendeville, "that it was enough to hold the faith inte- 
riorly while obeying the sovereign in externals, espe- 
cially in the singing of psalms and parts of Scripture 
in the vulgar tongue, a thing which seemed to them 
indifferent, and, in persons otherwise virtuous, worthy 
of toleration on account of the terrible rigor of the 
laws." 4 

The question of occasional conformity was sub- 
mitted to the Pope, Paul IV, who decided, as might 
be expected, that there could be no compromise with 
heresy, and no alliance between the ancient Church 
and the sect of the day. "William Allen finding "that 
not only laymen, who believed the faith in their 
hearts, and heard Mass when they could, frequented 
the schismatical churches . . . but many priests said 
Mass privately and celebrated the heretical offices and 
Supper in public, " 5 set to work at once to combat 
this fast-spreading error. Although a mere layman, 
he was listened to as one speaking with authority, a 
fact which speaks volumes for the estimate in which 
he was held at this early date by his Catholic fellow- 
countrymen. He went from house to house, insisting 
on obedience to the commands of the Holy See, and 
circulated in manuscript his treatise on the authority 
of the Church, which was printed abroad two years 

4 September 16, 1580. 

e Knox, The Douay Diaries, vol. i, p. 23. 



CARDINAL ALLEN 



143 



later under the title Certain Brief Reasons Concern- 
ing the Catholic Faith. He remained in England 
two years, and so stiffened the resolution of the Cath- 
olics in Lancashire, that it remained, according to his 
enemies, for three centuries i 'a hotbed of Popery," 
and furnished him the chief supporters in England 
of the seminaries he was to establish abroad. Such 
activity incited the wrath of the authorities, who did 
their utmost to apprehend him. He was forced to go 
in turn to Oxfordshire, and Norfolk; and after a brief 
visit to Oxford, he escaped to the Continent, never to 
return. 

He went at once to Malines, where he was ordained 
priest in 1565. In May of that year, he published his 
well-known work, A Defence and Declaration of the 
Catholic Church's Doctrine Touching Purgatory and 
Prayers for the Souls Departed. He made Malines 
his home for the next two years, lecturing on theology 
at the College of the Benedictines. His book on 
Purgatory soon came to the notice of Elizabeth, and 
a warrant was at once issued for his arrest. While 
the Queen's writ was being published, Father Allen 
wrote another book on Confession and Indulgences — 
some four hundred and twelve pages — which put him 
in the very first rank of the controversialists of the 
day. Scholarly, clear, lucid, accurate, he always 
wrote with the tenderest love for those who had made 
shipwreck of the old faith. In the fall of 1567 he 
made a pilgrimage to Rome with his old master at 
Oriel, Morgan Philipps, and Dr. Vendeville, then 



144 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Regius Professor of Canon Law at the University of 
Douay, and later on Bishop of Tournay. Dr. Vende- 
ville had wished to lay before the Pope, St. Pius V, 
a plan for the conversion of infidels, but the Pope 
was too busy at the time to give him an audience. 
On his way home, he expressed his disappointment to 
his friend, Father Allen, who at once took the oppor- 
tunity of pleading the cause of his persecuted breth- 
ren in England. The result of this conversation was 
the founding of the College of Douay, which was to 
accomplish so much for the preservation of the faith 
in England during the days of persecution. 

The college was opened on Michaelmas Day, 1568. 
The Papal confirmation and approval being granted 
a few months later, Father Allen was made president, 
and Bristow, "his right hand," a fellow of Exeter 
College, became his prefect of studies. The first mem- 
bers of the college were two Belgians, Raverton and 
Colier, who with John Marshall, Dean of Christ 
Church, left shortly, because the poverty of the col- 
lege was more than they could stand. Some of the 
other pioneers were Risdon, who later on joined the 
English Carthusians at Bruges; Wright, who labored 
long on the English Mission; Storey, who became a 
Jesuit; Darell, of New College, and Morgan Philipps, 
of Oriel ; Stapleton, the controversialist, and Campion, 
the martyr. Father Allen's seminary was really the 
first seminary established under the new rules pro- 
mulgated by the Council of Trent. The course of 
study was as generous as the diet was meager. Spe- 



CARDINAL ALLEN 



145 



cial attention was paid to the study of the Bible, the 
history of the Church, and the controversies of the 
day, every student looking forward with gladness to 
the day when he would be sent to face death on the 
English mission. 

During the first ten years of its existence — 1568- 
1578 — the college sent forth from its walls seventy- 
four priests, fifteen of whom died for the faith. 
Cuthbert Mayne enjoys the distinction of being the 
proto-martyr, and the story of his life may be found 
in Dr. Allen's Brief History of the Glorious Martyr- 
dom of Twelve Reverend Priests, published in 1582. 
The college had to struggle along in the direst poverty 
for some years, for Elizabeth had prohibited the send- 
ing of money from England, and many of the Eng- 
lish exiles had suffered on account of the failure of 
the Northern Insurrection, and the revolutionary 
movement in the Netherlands. The Pope came to its 
rescue with a pension of one hundred gold crowns a 
month, equivalent to one thousand crowns at the pres- 
ent day. This was in 1576. Everything was in a 
most flourishing condition at this time, for there were 
eighty English students in the seminary and sixty at 
the university. But within two years the revolution- 
ary party came into power in Douay, and a new gov- 
ernor appointed by the Prince of Orange and the 
States, commanded all the English to depart. In the 
Holy Week of 1578, the College was transferred to 
Rheims. Within eight months the Calvinistic faction 
was expelled, and the city and the magistrates, rep- 



146 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



resenting the old order of things, asked Dr. Allen to 
return. He refused, for another removal would have 
been troublesome and expensive, and the state of the 
Low Countries was far from being settled. 

Knox, in his historical preface to the Letters and 
Memorials of Cardinal Allen, says that Allen's po- 
litical activities only began about the year 1582, but 
later investigations make it plain that they dated at 
least six years earlier. Still, he never allowed the 
peace and quiet of his college to be disturbed by any 
mention of politics. Nothing perhaps is more remark- 
able in his career than the rigid separation he main- 
tained between his life as president of the seminary, 
and his life as a prominent factor in affairs of State. 
He forbade absolutely all political discussions among 
the students, and all allusions in school questions and 
controversies to the vexed question of depriving and 
excommunicating princes. 

Dr. Allen was certainly most active in political 
schemes for the furtherance of the cause of Mary, 
Queen of Scots, and the overthrow of Elizabeth. 
When Gregory XIII consented to have an expedition 
sent to England in his name, with one of the Colonnas 
as Captain General, he summoned Dr. Allen to Rome 
for consultation. Gregory XIII was only paying back 
Elizabeth in her own coin when he sent aid to her re- 
volted subjects, but aggressions so feeble and poorly 
planned as those of Stuckley, Fitzgerald, and San 
Giuseppe, might, as our author says, "well excite the 
risibility as well as the anger of the terrible queen.' ' 



CARDINAL ALLEN 



147 



Had Philip II given his aid at the time, these attempts 
might have been successful, but to act without him 
was pure folly. If, as seems probable, Dr. Allen ad- 
vised the sending of these expeditions, we cannot 
think highly of his political sagacity. 

Again we find Dr. Allen in Paris in the year 1582, 
busying himself with the schemes of Esme Stuart, 
Lord of Aubigny, and cousin to the King of Scotland, 
James VI. Two years were spent in trying to interest 
the King of Spain and the Duke of Guise in Aubigny '& 
plan for the overthrow of Elizabeth, but the affair 
came to the knowledge of the English government, 
and the Duke of Lennox died without accomplishing 
anything. We know that Dr. Allen wrote most en- 
thusiastically of this enterprise to the Pope, Gregory 
XIII, describing two interviews that he had had with 
the Duke of Guise in Paris. He seemed to share with 
Father Persons the opinion that the majority of the 
people in England were prepared to rise against their 
queen on the mere appearance of French or Spanish 
troops. Father Persons' influence on Dr. Allen was 
supreme, and the latter 's long absence from his native 
land had caused him to get out of touch with the 
deepest instincts of the nation, despite the constant 
intercourse that went on between Rheims and Eng- 
land. 

Another instance which shows how foreign were 
his ways of thinking to the majority of his Catholic 
fellow-countrymen, was his written defense of the 
treason of Sir William Stanley, who had delivered 



148 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Deventer over to the King of Spain. Dr. Allen char- 
acterized this treason as "a lawful and a laudable 
act," which so astounded many Catholics in England 
that they deemed his work "a forgery of some ma- 
licious man to make our cause odious to the world." 

Memorandum after memorandum was laid before 
the Pope by the Spanish Ambassador, Olivares, urging 
the elevation of Dr. Allen to the purple, because of 
his staunch advocacy of the claims of Philip II to the 
English crown, and as a first step towards the long 
talked-of English expedition. The Pope finally 
yielded in the Consistory of August 7, 1587, in the 
hope that Philip's attack upon England would be 
made without delay. But the dilatory King allowed 
a year to go by, thus giving Elizabeth ample time to 
prepare. Dr. Allen himself expressly states that his 
cardinalate was due to Jesuit influence at the Court 
of Spain, and chiefly to Philip 's great friend, Father 
Persons. It is rather pathetic now to read of Cardi- 
nal Allen's drawing up a paper for the guidance of 
the King, containing " suggestions as to the way of 
filling up the churches and offices of the King and 
kingdom of England, if God gives the success which is 
hoped for from His mercy." The Armada went to 
its defeat a year later, and the English Catholics, 
despite their cruel treatment by Elizabeth, were loyal 
to a man in repelling the Spanish invaders. 

To his dying day, Cardinal Allen remained con- 
vinced that the only hope for England lay in Spanish 
interference. We can imagine his chagrin, therefore, 



CARDINAL ALLEN 



149 



at the utter defeat of the Armada, and Philip 's aban- 
donment of the enterprise. Our author regrets — and 
rightly, too — that Cardinal Allen should have ever 
combined his successful spiritual welfare, which he 
so well understood, with a disastrous political cam- 
paign which he understood so little. 

Cardinal Allen's tact and large-mindedness are 
never so apparent as in his dealings with the dissen- 
sions in the English College at Rome. From the out- 
set the English students were ever setting forth their 
grievances, whether the college was under the Welsh- 
man, Dr. Clenoek, who was singularly lacking in the 
talent of governing, or under the Italian Jesuits, who 
were disliked because of "the open penances in hall, 
and the surveillance and espionage, which," as Ely 
says in his Certain Brief Notes, "had they been at- 
tempted at Oxford and Cambridge, the offenders 
would have risked being torn to pieces." A third 
reason was the favor supposedly shown to those 
students who showed any inclination to join the 
Society. 

As a matter of fact, sixty-nine Englishmen had be- 
come Jesuits between the years 1556 and 1580, and 
yet the number sent into England had been surpris- 
ingly small. Mr. Haile writes: 

"There were seldom more than four or five Jesuits 
at a time in England, and even so late as 1598, 
eighteen years after Campion and Persons arrived in 
the country, they numbered only sixteen, of whom one 
was in prison. The same proportion held good among 



150 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



those who fell in defense of the faith. During the 
forty-four years of Elizabeth's reign, although the 
persecution raged even more hotly against the Jesuits 
than the seculars, one hundred and sixty seminary 
priests were martyred to seven Jesuits, one Benedic- 
tine and one Franciscan. Of the Jesuits, four — 
Father Briant, John Cornelius, Roger Filcock, and 
Francis Page — were all secular priests who joined the 
Society shortly before their death." 

Cardinal Allen was always called upon to play the 
role of peacemaker. We find him called to Rome to 
restore harmony and good will between the students 
and the authorities in 1579, and again six years later 
he pours oil upon the waters by having the Pope, 
Sixtus V, appoint "William Holt, an English Jesuit, 
to take the place of the Italian Father Agazzari. 

Besides the four works already mentioned, Cardinal 
Allen wrote a Latin Treatise on the Sacraments, 
which was highly esteemed and used by Cardinal 
Bellarmine ; an Apology for the two English colleges 
of Rheims and Rome; a Life of Father Campion; a 
Defense of English Catholics, against the lying and 
slanderous pamphlet of Lord Burleigh ; 6 Instructions 
Concerning the Government of Seminaries, and prob- 
ably the famous Admonition, which the appellant 
priests ascribed to Father Persons. His controversial 
writings so angered the English government, that it 
not only issued a writ for his arrest, but did its utmost 
to have Henry III deliver him into its hands. Secre- 

6 Published lately by the Catholic Library of England. 



CARDINAL ALLEN 



151 



tary Walsingham had deputed, moreover, the notori- 
ous Egremont Radcliffe to assassinate Dr. Allen, as 
well as Don Juan of Austria, as Radcliffe himself con- 
fessed on the scaffold. Removal by assassination 
seems to have been part of the politics of the sixteenth 
century, for we recall Catherine de Medici's attempt 
upon Coligny, which prepared the way for the mas- 
sacre of St. Bartholomew, and Philip II 's approval of 
the plan to assassinate Elizabeth. Many politicians 
of that day looked upon the murder of an enemy not 
as a crime, but as an act of war, as part and parcel 
of the general attack upon an enemy against whom 
hostilities were opening. It is hard for us at the pres- 
ent time to realize this viewpoint, and it is good to 
remember that the Popes never gave the slightest 
countenance to such a false and brutal doctrine. 
Pope Pius V has indeed been accused by non-Catholic 
controversialists of advocating assassination with re- 
gard to the Huguenot leaders in France, and with 
regard to Elizabeth in England, but not the slightest 
evidence has ever been brought forward for this false 
accusation. 

Ever since the Council of Trent had declared the 
Latin Vulgate the authentic version of the Sacred 
Scriptures, the Popes had been anxious to publish a 
corrected recension. Pius IV had appointed a com- 
mission of Cardinals for that purpose. In 1579 Car- 
dinal Montalto urged upon Gregory XIII the impor- 
tance of preparing a more correct edition of the 
Septuagint as a preliminary to the recension of the 



152 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Vulgate. Cardinal Caraffa was appointed to take up 
the matter, and among the scholars whom he chose to 
assist him is found the name of Cardinal Allen. How 
much work he did on this commission is not known, 
but he must have spent some time upon it during his 
five months' stay in Rome during the winter of 1579- 
1580, and again on his return in 1585. This cor- 
rected edition of the Septuagint was finally published 
by Sixtus V in 1587. He was unable to complete the 
Vulgate, for we find Pope Gregory XIV appointing 
a new commission in 1591. Fitzherbert speaks of 
Cardinal Allen 's labors on this commission, as well as 
his work in the two Congregations of the Index and 
the Affairs of Germany. On the death of Cardinal 
Caraffa, Cardinal Allen was appointed by the Pope 
apostolic librarian. One of his labors in this office 
was the correcting of the text of St. Augustine, which 
he undertook in cooperation with other scholars. 
Death alone prevented him from completing it. 

We must not forget that we owe our English Bible 
to Cardinal Allen. Soon after the transference of 
the English College to Rheims, he commissioned Greg- 
ory Martin to work on a translation of the Bible. 
Personally he preferred to keep the Scriptures in the 
original, but as many corrupt versions were in circu- 
lation, he deemed it necessary to have a faithful and 
correct text that Catholics might trust. Martin began 
his translation on October 16, 1578, and it was re- 
vised and corrected page by page, as it proceeded, by 
Bristow and Cardinal Allen. The New Testament 



CARDINAL ALLEN 



153 



was completed in March, 1582, and the Old Testament 
in 1611, Dr. Allen collecting all the necessary funds — 
about $25,000 — for the publication. 

Martin did his work well. Henceforth the English- 
speaking Catholics were to have a correct translation 
of the Bible, which they could confidently quote in 
answer to the faulty Protestant versions, gotten up to 
promote the theological errors and heresies of their 
translators. It put an end to the many Protestant 
versions then in use, and caused the publishing of the 
King James Version of 1611. The translators of the 
Authorized Version made great use of the labors of 
Gregory Martin, as is clear from their adoption of 
many of his renderings. 

Some superficial writers have spoken of the Douay 
Bible as overloaded with Latinism, and have ascribed 
this fault to the fact that the translators and revisers 
were exiles, who had grown unfamiliar with their na- 
tive tongue. Martin forestalled this objection by de- 
claring that he followed the Vulgate to the best of his 
ability, because it had been declared authentic by the 
Council of Trent. He preferred to follow a bit 
closely the Latin text, rather than endanger the true 
sense by the use of more familiar words. All con- 
cerned with the translation were Oxford men, and all 
but Allen himself had but lately left the university. 
Scholars of late have come to acknowledge the excel- 
lent English of the Douay Bible. As a writer in The 
Catholic World, November, 1870, well says: " Mar- 
tin's translation is terse, close, vigorous, grand old 



154 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



English of the very best era of English literature, 
coeval with Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, and Spenser. " 

Cardinal Allen will always be held in reverence for 
his scholarship, his skill and earnestness in contro- 
versy, his indefatigable labors in maintaining the 
faith in England by his continual supply of learned 
and holy missionaries, his translation of the Bible, and 
his general character of sweetness and charm of man- 
ner which did so much to quiet the dissensions of the 
English Catholics of his time. His one fault was his 
entering into politics, for which he was absolutely un- 
fitted, and his submitting to being made a tool of by 
the King of Spain. His political prejudices were with 
him even to the last, for one year before his death we 
find him drawing up a strong indictment against 
Henry of Navarre for his 1 'pretended" conversion. 
Luckily for France and for the peace of Europe, 
Clement VIII believed in Henry's sincerity. The 
Pope 's solemn absolution of the King ended the thirty 
years of religious wars in France, and made France 
a powerful ally of the Holy See. 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 



We can readily understand how in the seventeenth 
century the condemnation of Galileo caused a stir out 
of proportion to the real merits of the case. For that 
age was preeminently the age of transition. The nat- 
ural sciences — physics, astronomy, and mechanics — 
were still in their infancy, and were studied simply 
as divisions of philosophy. They were looked upon 
as useful auxiliaries, it is true, but they were without 
any individuality or method of their own. 

Galileo, although not the first, was the most ener- 
getic and the most prominent defender of the new 
physical sciences, which were based no longer on the 
authority of Aristotle, but on personal observation of 
phenomena and mathematical analysis. When he pro- 
claimed the absolute freedom of physics and astron- 
omy from their old-time dependence upon a priori 
speculations, and declared open war upon the indig- 
nant followers of the scholastic philosophy, they were 
up in arms at once, eager to combat so daring and 
persistent an innovator. Did not every Doctor in the 
schools swear by the word of the Master? Had not 
the physical teaching of Aristotle held the field for 
centuries and furnished many an exact and ingenious 
explanation of natural phenomena? 

Again Galileo's place in the intellectual world, due 

155 



156 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



to his marvelous discoveries, his influential lay and 
clerical friends, especially in Tuscany and at the Papal 
Court; his obstinate determination to meet the theo- 
logians of his day on their own vantage ground of 
Biblical exegesis; the aggressiveness and bitterness 
wherewith he attacked every one, no matter how 
powerful, who dared disagree with him — these were 
some of the reasons that brought about his condemna- 
tion, and at the same time gave it a prominence alto- 
gether unique. 

At the outset it may be of interest to give a brief 
historical sketch of the two sets of official documents 
in the archives of the Inquisition relating to the 
Galileo case, viz., the trials and the decrees. 

The trial registers contain all the documents that 
were used by the theological consultors and the In- 
quisitors in coming to their final decision — autograph 
letters of accusation and defense; the official reports 
of the interrogatories; the various opinions of the 
judges ; the copies of the sentences given, and the like. 
The decree registers contain the minutes of the various 
sessions of the Congregation, the arguments pro and 
con, and the final judicial sentence. 

The records of the trial were kept at Rome in the 
archives of the Holy Office until the beginning of the 
nineteenth century, and all access to them was for- 
bidden in accord with the traditions of that secret 
tribunal. In 1811, some time after the French occupa- 
tion of Rome, Napoleon ordered all the records of the 
Inquisition sent to Paris. He commanded his libra- 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 157 



rian, Barbier, to publish at once the documents in the 
Galileo case, but he was deterred by the difficulty of 
the task, and the Emperor was too busily engaged 
with his last campaigns to see that his orders were 
carried out. These papers, although asked for twice 
by Pius VII, did not find their way back to Rome 
until 1845, when they were returned to the Pope by 
Count Rossi, with the express condition that they be 
published in their entirety. Pius IX at once entrusted 
them to the Prefect of the Vatican Archives, Mon- 
signor Marini, who on July 8, 1850, deposited them in 
the Vatican library. Thence they were transferred 
to the secret archives of the Vatican, where they still 
remain. 

The promise made to Count Rossi was partially 
carried out in 1850 by Monsignor Marini, who pub- 
lished a portion of the documents in his work, Galileo 
and the Inquisition, an Historical and Critical Memoir. 
This edition, however, was so imperfect that it made 
the scholarly world feel that there were certain things 
in the record which the ecclesiastical authorities were 
anxious to hide. For nearly twenty years scholars 
asked Rome in vain for permission to consult these 
documents. This favor was finally granted in July, 
1867, through the courtesy of the Vatican Librarian, 
Father Theiner, to Henri de l'Epinois. Soon after 
he published some of the most important passages in 
the Revue des Questions Historiques of Paris, with a 
brief summary of the remainder. A third and a fourth 
edition, more complete but still imperfect, were pub- 



158 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



lished by Berti at Rome in 1876 and 1878. In 1877 
two fairly complete editions were published, the one 
in Paris by Henri de l'Epinois, and the other in Stutt- 
gart by Charles von Gebler. It was not until 1907 
that a final and minutely critical text was published 
in Florence by A. Favaro. 

The manuscripts of the decrees had also a rather 
interesting history. The agents of Napoleon did not 
find them among the papers that they carried with 
them to France in 1811. Scholars who felt that they 
must be in Rome, asked the authorities there more 
than once for the privilege of consulting them, but 
they were always met with a polite refusal. 

When Pius IX went into exile at Gaeta in 1848, the 
Roman Constituent Assembly transferred the archives 
of the Inquisition to the Church of Sant' Apollinare. 
Two of the Roman officials, Gherardi and Manzari, 
went several times to look for the papers that referred 
to the Galileo case. They, of course, did not find the 
records of the trial, as they were safe in the hands 
of Monsignor Marini, but Gherardi did discover seven- 
teen authentic decrees, and an eighteenth century 
copy of thirty-two decrees. He published them in 
1867, just about the time that the records of the trial 
were being edited in Germany and France. It was 
not until thirty years later that the critical edition of 
Favaro was published. About the same time, 1908, 
Favaro also published a new edition of the works of 
Galileo in twenty volumes, under the auspices of the 
King of Italy. 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 159 



It is, therefore, only in the last seven years that 
one can discuss the Galileo case with a perfect grasp 
of all the facts. All scholars writing before 1908 were 
unaware of the existence of some very important 
documents. 

The most complete bibliography we possess of the 
Galileo case was published at Rome in 1896 by A. 
Carli and A. Favaro. This Bibliografia Galileiana 
gives a list of 2,108 publications with their dates. 

Favaro 's critical edition of the trials and the de- 
crees is entitled Galileo e I'lnquisizione (Florence, 
1907). 

We mention here a score of the best books in the 
order of their publication. 

Berti, Rome, 1876. II Processo di Galileo Galilei. 

H. de l'Epinois, Paris, 1877. La Question de 
Galilee. 

Von Gebler, Stuttgart, 1877. Die Acten des Gali- 
leischen Processes. 

Schanz, Wiirzburg, 1878. Galileo Galilei und sein 
Process. 

Pieralisi, Rome, 1878. Urbano VIII e Galileo 
Galilei. 

Pieralisi, Rome, 1878. Novi Observazioni sopra il 
Processo di Galileo. 

Reusch, Bonn, 1879. Le Proces de Galilee et les 
J esuites. 

Grisar, Ratisbon, 1882. Galileistudien. 
Bourquard, Paris, 1886. Galilee, son proces, sa con- 
demnation, et les Congregations Romaines. 



160 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Jaugey, Paris, 1888. Le Proces de Galilee et la 
Theologie. 

Vacandard, Paris, 1905. Etudes des Critique et 
d'Histoire Religieuse. Vol. I. 

Miiller, Fribourg, 1909. Der Galilei Prozess. 

Miiller, Fribourg, 1909. Galileo Galilei, und das 
Eopemikanische Weltsystem. 

Aubanel, Avignon, 1910. Galilee et VEglise. 

P. de Vregille, Paris, 1911. Galileo. An article in 
the Dictionaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique. 
Vol. II, col. 147-192. 

Part I 

Galileo Galilei, born at Pisa, February 18, 1564, 
was Professor of Physics and Mathematics at the Uni- 
versity of Pisa, 1589-1592, and at Padua, 1592-1610. 
In the early days of his professorship he taught the 
Ptolemaic theory. When he became a convert to the 
Copernican theory will never be known with certainty. 
Some declare that it was due to the arguments of his 
friends, Christian Wursteisen, of Basle, and Michael 
Mastlin, who had been Kepler's professor. It is cer- 
tain that he held it as early as 1597, for he mentions 
the fact in a letter to Kepler on August 4 of that year. 
The frequent statement that his abandonment of the 
old theory was due to the appearance in September, 
1604, of a new star in the Constellation Serpentarius 
is now disproved. 

Hans Lippershey's discovery of the telescope in 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 161 



October, 1608, afforded Galileo, who at once increased 
its magnifying power over thirtyfold, a most effective 
instrument of research into the constitution and rela- 
tion of the heavenly bodies. 

In March, 1610, he published at Venice his Sidereus 
Nuntius, which described the mountains and valleys 
of the moon, the groups of lesser stars known as the 
Milky Way, and the four satellites of Jupiter, which 
he had discovered on January 7 and named Medicea 
Sidera, in honor of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, 
Cosmo II. This work was received with the greatest 
enthusiasm by the scientific world. Galileo was named 
honorary professor of the University of Padua, and 
made official mathematician of the Grand Duke. This 
was no mere compliment, as it gave him one of the 
Duke 's villas for his summer residence, and an annual 
income of 1,000 scudi (about $2,000). Before the end 
of the year he discovered the ansated or, as he thought, 
the triple form of Saturn, the phases of Venus and of 
Mars, and the spots upon the sun. 

In a letter to Prince Cesi about this time he declared 
that this last discovery utterly destroyed Aristotle's 
theory of the incorruptibility of the heavenly bodies. 
The followers of Aristotle at once answered him, some 
asserting correctly that his proofs were not at all 
demonstrative, while others, in their prejudice, went 
so far as even to deny the truth of his discoveries. 
They maintained that they were mere optical illu- 
sions, due to the imperfection of the instrument he 
had used. As he put it sarcastically in one of his 



162 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



letters, "some tried to drive the new planets out of the 
heavens by means of syllogisms. ' ' 

In March, 1611, he went to Rome, where he was 
most cordially received by Pope Paul V, Prince Cesi, 
and the entire Papal court. The Academy of the 
Lincei admitted him to membership, and the astrono- 
mers of the Roman College discussed his discoveries 
with him in a most friendly manner. He dined fre- 
quently with Cardinal Farnese, Cardinal del Monte, 
and Cardinal Barberini, the future Pope Urban VIII. 

The defenders of the Ptolemaic system were indig- 
nant at this kindly reception. They began a most 
energetic crusade against the Copernican theory, de- 
claring that it was contrary to the teaching of the 
early Fathers and the old theologians, made little of 
Aristotle and the scholastic philosophy, expressly con- 
tradicted the plain words of the Sacred Scriptures 
(Jos. ix. 12, 13; Eccles. i. 4, 5; Eccli. xliii. 26; Ps. 
xviii. 6, 7 ; Ps. xci. 1; Ps. ciii. 5), and was therefore 
evidently heretical. 

It is true that Nicholas de Cusa, as far back as 1445, 
had published in Basle his work, De Docta Ignorantia, 
which defended the Copernican theory. He dedicated 
it to Cardinal Cesarini, who read the work with great 
pleasure and interest. Instead of his being condemned 
by the Roman authorities, he was made a Cardinal in 
1448. But he did not put forth his theory as an ob- 
jective fact, or declare that it was in perfect accord 
with the teaching of the Fathers and the Scriptures; 
he simply maintained it as an ingenious hypothesis. 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 163 



Copernicus at Nuremberg in 1543 had published his 
De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, in defense of 
the theory that still bears his name. At the instance 
of Cardinal de Schomberg, it was dedicated to Pope 
Paul III, and by him was well received. The followers 
of Ptolemy never raised the slightest question about 
it, for its editor, Andrew Osiander, was clever enough 
to omit Copernicus' own preface, and substitute one 
of his own, which asserted — falsely, it is true — that 
the new theory was not defended as the objective 
truth, but merely as an hypothesis to aid in the study 
of astronomy. Galileo says in one of his letters: 
"While Copernicus acquired an immortal glory 
among a few, the vast majority laughed at him and 
made little of his learning. ' ' In Germany and Austria 
his views made little or no progress, because of the 
influence of Tj^cho-Brahe, who strenuously combated 
them. The Protestant world was also hostile, because 
of the bitter opposition of the leading Reformers, 
Luther and Melanchthon. In Italy, on the other hand, 
Pope Clement VII was rather favorable, for he had 
John Widmanstad defend the Copernican theory in 
his presence. 

But Galileo was not content with holding his theory 
as a mere scientific hypothesis; he wished to convince 
the world of its objective truth. His kindly reception 
in Rome emboldened him to set forth his views even 
more strongly in two new works, A Discourse on Float- 
ing Bodies (Florence, 1612), and A History of the 
Solar Spots (Rome, 1613). 



164 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 

Towards the end of 1611 a Florentine monk, Fran- 
cesco Sizi by name, published at Venice his book, 
Dianoia Astronomica, which declared that Galileo's 
theories were in direct contradiction to the teaching 
of the Scriptures. Had Galileo been prudent enough 
to follow the advice of his friends, who warned him 
earnestly ' ' to keep out of the sacristy, ' ' he would have 
utterly ignored this attack. But his natural impetu- 
osity and love of controversy made him enter the lists, 
and endeavor to meet the theologians on their own 
ground. This was a fatal mistake. The Church has 
always been suspicious, and rightly so, of the lay theo- 
logian, and the churchmen of that day were especially 
on the alert, because of the spread of the false Protes- 
tant principle of the private interpretation of the 
Bible. 

Galileo met the objection of his opponent in a letter 
which he wrote to the Benedictine Father Castelli 
(1613) . In it he gave his interpretation of the various 
texts of the Bible which seemed to go against his 
theory, and also laid down certain rules of exegesis, 
which were to guide the scientist and the theologian 
in discussing natural phenomena. Two years later he 
wrote to Christina of Lorraine, the mother of the 
Grand Duke, a defense of the Copernican theory, in 
which he developed the same ideas. 

In his letter to Father Castelli, he said, among other 
things : ' ' The Bible cannot err or deceive us ; the truth 
of its words are absolute and unassailable. But they 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 165 



who explain and interpret the Scriptures may be de- 
ceived in many ways, and commit many fatal errors 
by always slavishly following the literal sense of the 
words. By so doing they may even teach contradic- 
tory and impious doctrines and errors, for they would 
be forced to ascribe to God hands, feet, eyes, etc. . . . 
In questions of natural science the Bible ought to take 
the last place. Both nature and the Bible come from 
God; the one has been inspired by the Holy Spirit, 
while the other faithfully obeys the laws established 
by God. But while the Bible, accommodating itself to 
the average intelligence of man, often speaks, and 
rightly so, according to appearances, and used terms 
that are not intended to express the absolute truth, 
nature conforms rigorously and invariably to the rules 
prescribed to it. One, therefore, ought not to cite 
texts of Scripture against a fact clearly proved by 
careful observation. . . . The Holy Spirit has no 
intention of teaching us through the Holy Scriptures 
that the sun moves or that the sun does not move. 
. . . Can any one maintain that the Holy Spirit 
wishes to teach us anything which does not concern 
the soul's salvation?" 

Most of this letter to-day would be considered com- 
monplace and orthodox enough, with the exception of 
a few statements like that expressed in the last sen- 
tence. Indeed, even at that time the theologian to 
whom this letter was referred by the Congregation of 
the Index declared that, save for three expressions, it 



166 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



contained nothing worthy of condemnation, and that 
even these three might be interpreted in an orthodox 
sense. 

Still this doctrine was novel to the ears of the seven- 
teenth century, and the average theologian deemed it 
heretical. The Dominican Father Caccini, preaching 
on Josue in the Church of Santa Maria Novella in 
Florence, declaimed vehemently against the opinion 
of Galileo, which he asserted was "incompatible with 
the Catholic Faith, inasmuch as it contradicted several 
passages of the Scriptures, and was quasi-heretical." 
The Superior of the Dominicans apologized to Galileo 
for this outburst, and deplored the great folly and im- 
prudence of the preacher. Still this open denuncia- 
tion of Galileo caused a great stir not only in Flor- 
ence, but all over Italy. 

Galileo was very much incensed at this attack, and 
was anxious to bring his accuser before the Roman 
tribunals, but his friend, Prince Cesi, dissuaded him, 
for he feared that a thorough examination of the 
question in the present state of public opinion would 
result in an adverse decision. The future was to prove 
how well founded his suspicions were. But the oppo- 
nents of the Copernican theory were nothing loath to 
bring the matter to the official attention of the Roman 
authorities. 

On February 15, 1615, Father Lorini, a Dominican 
of Florence, sent a copy of the Castelli letter to Car- 
dinal Sfondrati, the Prefect of the Congregation of 
the Index. He also sent with it a letter of his own, 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 167 



in which he pointed out the erroneous expressions that 
he wished examined. They were as follows : ' 4 Certain 
expressions of the Scriptures were not accurate; in 
discussions of natural phenomena, the Bible held the 
last place; the Doctors of the Church were often de- 
ceived in their explanations; the Bible ought not to 
be cited in matters outside of the domain of faith ; in 
natural science, the philosophical or astronomical 
argument had more force than the divine argument; 
the command of Josue to the sun was not addressed 
to the sun at all." In a word, to his thinking, the 
theory of Galileo ' 'contradicted the Scriptures, the 
teaching of the Fathers and of St. Thomas, besides 
making little of the philosophy of Aristotle." He 
added, however, that he wrote merely in the interests 
of religion, and that he had no intention of making a 
juridical deposition. 

Cardinal Sfondrati at once sent these two docu- 
ments to the Holy Office, which, according to its cus- 
tom, began a secret inquiry, which lasted some months. 
Although both the report and the inquiry into its 
merits were supposed to be carried on in absolute 
secrecy, Galileo was informed of them by his many 
friends in Rome. 

He at once hurried to Rome, eager to defend his 
views against his opponents, and hoping to win accept- 
ance for them by reason of his many influential friends 
in that city. He was assured of the support of 
Monsignor Dini, Monsignor Ciampoli, and Cardinals 
Orsini, del Monte, Bellarmine, and Barberini. But, 



168 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



on the other hand, the Dominicans who ruled the Holy 
Office were all opposed to him, and although a few 
Jesuits, like Father Greinberger and Father Tor- 
quatus de Cupis, shared his views, the Order as a 
whole had been commanded by its superior to be loyal 
to Aristotle. Cardinal Bellarmine, a great friend of 
the Pope, and a prominent member of the Holy Office, 
did not himself believe that the Copernican theory 
could ever be proved, although he admitted its possi- 
bility. He told Galileo he need not worry in the least, 
provided he was ready to accept any decision that the 
Church might see fit to give. 

Galileo, if we are to believe his letters, was most 
submissive, for we find him writing to Monsignor 
Dini: "I would rather pluck out my eye than give 
scandal. I would do anything rather than resist my 
superiors and injure my soul, by maintaining against 
them an opinion which at present seems to me to be 
evident and worthy of credence." 

At Rome, Galileo met with the same cordial recep- 
tion which he had received on his former visit. He at 
once began to plead his cause with every one who would 
listen to him. In the salons of the chief families he 
attacked the views of his opponents with the greatest 
bitterness, so much so that his friends urged him to 
be less emphatic in his assertions, to confine himself to 
mere scientific arguments, and, above all, not, as a 
layman, to enter the provinces of the cleric by citing 
the Scriptures in his favor. This was excellent ad- 
vice, but, it is needless to say, Galileo utterly dig- 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 169 



regarded it. As the Grand Duke's ambassador, 
Guicciardini, wrote at the time, "It was his aggres- 
siveness and imprudence that rendered inevitable the 
intervention of the Holy Office." 

About this time two other works appeared which 
defended the Copernican theory and declared it in 
perfect accord with the Scriptures. One was A Com- 
mentary on the Book of Job, by Father de Zuniga, 
and the other Father Foscarini's treatise on The Sys- 
tem of the World. The latter, by publishing his work 
in the vernacular, caused so great a stir that a decision 
became all the more imperative. 

Until the last moment, Galileo thought that the de- 
cision of the Congregation might be postponed in- 
definitely, or that it might even decide in his favor. 
We find him writing on February 20, 1616: "I will 
succeed in revealing the fraud of my adversaries. I 
will oppose them, and prevent any declaration being 
made that might cause scandal to the Church." But 
only the day before he wrote this letter, the theologians 
of the Holy Office had received a copy of the following 
propositions to censure : 1. The sun is the center of 
the world, and altogether immovable. 2. The earth is 
not the center of the world, nor immovable, but has a 
diurnal motion of rotation. 

On February 23 the theologians met and agreed 
upon the following censures : The first proposition was 
declared "stupid and absurd in philosophy, and for- 
mally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicted 
many passages of the Holy Scriptures, according to 



170 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



the sense of the text, and the common interpretation 
and opinion of the Holy Fathers and learned theo- 
logians." The second proposition received the same 
censure in philosophy, and theologically was declared 
to be at least "erroneous in faith." On February 24 
these censures were proposed to the Cardinals who 
were members of the Holy Office and approved by 
them. On February 25 these censures were read 
again in a final meeting, over which Pope Paul V 
presided. 

The Pope then ordered Cardinal Bellarmine to sum- 
mon Galileo and warn him to abandon his opinions. 
If he refused to promise "not to teach, defend or 
discuss his doctrine or opinion," he was to suffer im- 
prisonment. On February 26, Galileo appeared be- 
fore Cardinal Bellarmine in his palace, and promised 
to obey the orders that were given him. 

On March 3, in a session of the Inquisition over 
which the Pope presided, Cardinal Bellarmine de- 
clared that the orders of the Pope and the Congrega- 
tion had been carried out, and that Galileo had sub- 
mitted. 

Some writers used to question the fact of this order 
ever having been given to Galileo. They pretended 
that the registers of the Holy Office were falsified at 
the time of the second trial, in order to justify jurid- 
ically the condemnation for which his enemies were 
clamoring. But the publishing of the original docu- 
ments utterly refutes this false and arbitrary sup- 
position. 



THE CONDEMNATION OP GALILEO 171 



On March 5 the Pope ordered the Master of the 
Sacred Palace to publish the decree of the Index, con- 
demning absolutely the work of Foscarini, prohibiting 
the works of Copernicus and de Zuniga until they 
were corrected, and, as a general law, banning all 
books that taught the immobility of the sun, and the 
movement of the earth. 

It is worthy of note that out of respect to Galileo's 
great services to science, and his ready acceptance of 
the decree issued against his cherished views, the 
decree made no mention either of his name or his 
writings. The order given him not to defend in future 
the Copernican theory was a personal one, and all the 
members of the Congregation who knew of it were 
bound by their oath to keep it secret. 

Some of Galileo 's opponents, who did not relish this 
delicacy on the part of the Roman authorities, falsely 
spread the report that the Inquisition had imposed a 
penance upon him, and had forced him to abjure his 
heretical views. To answer these calumnies, Galileo 
wrote to Cardinal Bellarmine for a written statement 
of the facts. On May 26 the Cardinal wrote in reply : 
"Galileo has not abjured any of his opinions or doc- 
trines before me or any one else, at Rome or elsewhere, 
nor has he submitted to any penance. He has simply 
been notified of the declaration made by His Holiness, 
and published by the Congregation of the Index, viz., 
that the doctrine of Copernicus, according to which the 
earth moves around the sun, and the sun remains in 
the center of the world, is contrary to the Sacred 



172 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Scriptures, and that, therefore, it cannot be defended 
or believed. ' ' 

On March 11, Galileo was most kindly received in a 
long private audience by Paul V, who assured him 
that he was perfectly aware of the purity of his mo- 
tives, and urged him not to worry in future over the 
attacks of his enemies. ' ' While I live," he added, 
' 1 you may be certain that your calumniators will not 
be believed." 

We may mention here in brief the subsequent his- 
tory of this decree of the Index. Kepler's Epitome 
Astronomies, Copemicance was put on the Index in 
1619; Campanula's Apologia pro Galileo in 1632, and 
Galileo's Dialogo in 1634. The work of Copernicus 
was taken off the Index in 1620, certain words being 
inserted which declared it a mere scientific hypothesis. 
The full text of the decree was published in all the 
editions of the Index until 1664, when it was replaced 
by the words, 1 'All books teaching the movement of 
the earth and the immobility of the sun. ' ' It was not 
until 1822 that books teaching the Copernican theory 
could be printed in the city of Rome. Finally in 1825 
all mention of any prohibition on this point was 
omitted from the Index. 

Galileo, soon after the trial of 1616, left Rome for 
Florence, where he again took up his mathematical 
studies under the patronage of his friend, the Grand 
Duke of Tuscany. The letters of this period show 
clearly that the recent happenings at Rome had not 
in the least interfered with his reputation in either 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 173 



the scientific or the ecclesiastical world. Monsignor 
Cesarini wrote him that ''he was the unique glory of 
Italy and of science," while Cardinal Barberini, the 
future Urban VIII, dedicated to him in 1620 a long 
Latin ode. 

A pupil of Galileo's, Mario Guiducci, in his Dis- 
course on the Comets of 1618 (Florence, 1619), at- 
tacked before the Academicians of Florence the work 
of Father Horace Grassi on the same subject (1619). 
The latter, convinced that Galileo was attacking him 
in the name of his pupil, replied in a work entitled 
Libra Astronomica (Perugia, 1619), under the nom 
de plume of Sarsi. 

Galileo in turn answered this work four years later 
in his II Saggiatore (Rome, 1623). This appeared 
under the form of a letter to his friend, Monsignor 
Cesarini, the Maestro di Camera of the new Pope, 
Urban VIII. In it he stated that the theory of Coper- 
nicus was in perfect accord with the observations of 
the telescope, and that the Ptolemaic theory was un- 
tenable. He then argued that as the first opinion had 
been condemned by the ecclesiastical authorities, and 
the second was contrary to reason, scholars were bound 
to look for a new theory which would be in accord 
with both reason and the Bible. Although the sub- 
stance of the book was in reality only a skillfully 
veiled defense of the Copernican theory, Monsignor 
Riccardi did not perceive it, and at once gave it his 
imprimatur. In fact, he wrote of it in the most glow- 
ing terms. He said: "I have read II Saggiatore, and 



174 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



found nothing in it against good morals or the super- 
natural truths of faith. On the contrary, I discovered 
in it excellent teachings on natural philosophy which 
will make our age famous in ages to come. ... I 
am happy to be the contemporary of so learned a 
man. ' ' 

Pope Urban VIII was also deceived, and allowed 
Galileo to dedicate the book to him. More than this, 
he declared that he read it through with the greatest 
pleasure. Angered at the book's success, Father Grassi 
again attacked Galileo in his Ratio Ponderum Librce 
et Simbellce. Galileo ignored this attack, and allowed 
his pupil Guiducci to carry on the controversy alone. 

The flattering reception given his new book by the 
Pope, encouraged Galileo in the belief that he would 
succeed in having the adverse decree of Paul V an- 
nulled. Many of his friends at Rome were of the 
same opinion, and, at their invitation, Galileo again 
visited Rome in 1624. 

His reception was even more enthusiastic than be- 
fore, for we find him writing on June 8 to Prince 
Cesi: "His Holiness has accorded me great honors, 
and I have had six long audiences with him. Yester- 
day he promised me a pension for my son, and three 
days ago he gave me a beautiful picture, a gold and a 
silver medal, and a number of Agnus Dei." In a 
letter to Ferdinand II, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, 
the Pope praised Galileo highly, both for his scientific 
genius and his ardent piety, and urged this prince to 
continue the patronage graciously accorded by his 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 175 



predecessor. Galileo was unable, however, to persuade 
the Pope to accept the Copernican theory. 

Elated by the special kindness of the Pope, Galileo 
forgot all about the promise he had made the Roman 
authorities in 1616. During his visit to Rome, he did 
his utmost to gain adherents to his cause, and wrote a 
letter to Monsignor Ingoli, in which he plainly de- 
fended the condemned theory. But, for some reason 
or other, this letter was altogether ignored by his oppo- 
nents. Six years passed, during which he worked 
upon an open defense of the Copernican theory. 

He made a fourth visit to Rome in 1630, in order to 
obtain the required imprimatur for his projected work 
from Monsignor Riccardi, the Master of the Sacred 
Palace. On examining the manuscript, Monsignor 
Riccardi saw at once that Galileo had utterly dis- 
regarded the promise he had made in 1616 to the 
Roman Congregation. He, therefore, required him to 
add a preface and a conclusion to his book, clearly 
stating in them that he set forth the Copernican theory 
merely as a scientific hypothesis, and that his argu- 
ments against the Ptolemaic theory were not to be 
regarded as decisive proofs of its falsity. The revision 
in detail was handed over to the Dominican Father, 
Raphael Visconti, who suggested a few further correc- 
tions. Galileo, much against his will, agreed to all 
these requirements. Monsignor Riccardi, therefore, 
granted the imprimatur for Rome, reserving to him- 
self the right to correct the proofs of the book as they 
appeared. Pope Urban VIII, when informed about 



176 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



the proposed volume, asked his private secretary, Mon- 
signor Ciampoli, to make special inquiries about its 
publication. He was at once assured that Galileo was 
ready to fulfill all the conditions required by the 
Master of the Sacred Palace. 

At this juncture Galileo left Rome for Florence. 
Hardly had he arrived there when he wrote Monsignor 
Riccardi for permission to publish it in that city. 
This permission was at first refused. Galileo wrote 
again, backing up his request by a personal letter 
from the Grand Duke. Monsignor Riccardi then wrote 
to the Inquisitor of Florence, leaving the matter en- 
tirely in his hands. He sent him, moreover, a list of 
all the corrections already agreed upon, and insisted 
on their being made before the imprimatur was 
granted. 

In 1632 the book finally appeared under the title, 
Dialogo di Galileo delli due Massimi Sistemi del 
Mondo. It bore the authorization of the Inquisitor 
and the Vicar-General of Florence, and also the im- 
primatur of Monsignor Riccardi, although the condi- 
tions insisted upon had not been fulfilled. The preface 
and conclusion did appear, as promised, to satisfy the 
letter of the law, but they were evidently written in 
a spirit of ridicule and mockery. The book itself was 
undoubtedly a clear and formal defense of the Coper- 
nican theory. Two of Galileo's friends, Sagredo of 
Venice and Salviati of Florence, defended his views, 
and attacked his opponents most vehemently. An 
imaginary philosopher, Simplicio (imbecile), defended 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 177 



the Ptolemaic theory in such a way as to bring out the 
force and strength of his adversaries' arguments. 

This publication caused a great stir all over Italy, 
especially in Rome. Pope Urban VIII was very angry 
at the palpable dishonesty and trickery of Galileo, in 
having this book published without conforming to the 
conditions laid down by Monsignor Riccardi. Others 
say that he was indignant because he recognized some 
of his own arguments in the mouth of the stupid and 
ridiculous Simplicio. Galileo, hearing of this, wrote 
at once to the Pope's nephew, Cardinal Barberini, de- 
claring that he had not the slightest intention of 
ridiculing the Pope in his book. Monsignor Riccardi 
at once ordered the printer in Florence to stop the 
sale of the Dialogo, and the Pope referred it, in 
August, 1632, to a special commission of theologians. 
This commission found him guilty, first of having dis- 
obeyed the Orders of the Holy Office, and of having 
broken his promise made to that tribunal in 1616, 
and, second, of having treated the Copernican theory, 
not as a hypothesis but as an absolute fact. 

On September 23, 1632, the Pope ordered the In- 
quisitor at Florence to have Galileo appear in Rome 
for trial by October. Galileo, feeling certain that he 
would be condemned, did all he could to put off his 
journey to Rome. He first wrote for permission to 
appear before the Inquisitor of Florence, giving as his 
reasons his great age (he was nearly seventy), his ill 
health, and the fatigue incident upon the long journey 
to Rome. A second citation of November 19 allowed 



178 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



Galileo another month 's grace, but at the end of three 
months the Pope's patience was exhausted. Firmly 
convinced that all Galileo's excuses were mere subter- 
fuges, he wrote the Inquisitor of Florence on Decem- 
ber 30 to send Galileo to Rome, if need be in chains. 
There was no need to carry out this threat. Galileo, 
at last certain that he could no longer delay his jour- 
ney to Rome, left Florence on January 29, 1633. He 
traveled in the litter of the Grand Duke, and arrived 
at Rome in perfect health on February 16. 

According to law, he should have been imprisoned 
in one of the cells of the Inquisition, but an exception 
was made in his case, and the Villa Medici, the beau- 
tiful mansion of his friend Nicolini, was assigned to 
him as his residence. Later on, for convenience' sake 
during the interrogatories, he was assigned, not to the 
loathsome dungeon spoken of by ignorant controver- 
sialists, but to the apartments of the treasury of the 
Inquisition, where three good rooms were placed at his 
disposal. He remained there with his servant in per- 
fect comfort, as he himself assures us, for twenty-two 
days, his meals being provided by his friend, Nicolini, 
the ambassador of the Grand Duke. Many of Galileo 's 
friends assured him that he would not be condemned, 
but he himself was not so sanguine. Nicolini advised 
him not to discuss matters at all with his Inquisitors, 
but to grant at once all they asked, and to retract all 
that they demanded. ' ' Otherwise, " said he, "you 
will cause yourself no end of trouble. ' J 

The first interrogatory took place on the 12th of 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 179 



April, and the last on the 21st of June. According to 
the general procedure of the Holy Office, the inter- 
rogatories dealt with two points, viz., the question of 
heretical fact and the question of heretical intention. 

1. The question of Fact. Had Galileo taught in the 
Dialogo the opinion condemned by the decree of 1616, 
and which the Congregation of the Index had for- 
bidden him to defend in any form (quovis modo) ? 

2. The question of Intention. Had Galileo, as a 
matter of fact, held as true this condemned theory ? 

To the first question Galileo replied in substance as 
follows : ' ' I did not understand that the Congregation 
of the Index had forbidden me to teach the Copernican 
theory in any form. These words, quovis modo, in- 
deed, are found in the official text of the decree of 
February 26, 1616, but I have no remembrance of 
them whatever. They are not to be found in the 
letter that Cardinal Bellarmine wrote me on May 26 
of that year. He said simply that this theory was not 
to be held or defended (non si possa difendere ne 
tenere). I supposed that these words, written by one 
of the Inquisitors, expressed the mind of the Holy 
Office accurately, especially when they were viewed in 
the light of another letter which Cardinal Bellarmine 
wrote to Father Foscarini on April 12, 1616. In it 
are the words: ' Galileo will act prudently, if he con- 
tents himself with speaking ex suppositione, as Coper- 
nicus did.' " 

He, therefore, thought he was perfectly justified in 
defending the Copernican theory in his Dialogo as a 



180 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



mere hypothesis, but when the three consultors as- 
serted that his book taught the theory positively and 
categorically as an objective truth, he admitted that 
through ignorance or inadvertence he had adduced 
two arguments which did favor too plainly the Coper- 
nican theory. He further promised that if ever again 
he were to write on the subject, he would put these two 
arguments in such a form that they would be deprived 
of all their effectiveness. He then signed his deposi- 
tion, and again promised, if the requisite permission 
were given him, to refute all the arguments that 
seemed to favor the condemned theory. 

Notwithstanding this labored denial of Galileo, the 
Inquisitors declared against him on the question of 
fact, agreeing with the consultors, who declared that 
the Dialogo taught the Copernican theory as an ob- 
jective truth, and not as a mere hypothesis. 

On June 16 the Pope, presiding at a solemn ses- 
sion of the Inquisition, ordered the Inquisitors to 
question Galileo about his intention. They were to 
threaten him with torture (examen rigorosum), and if 
he persisted in denying that he had really held the 
condemned opinion, they were to condemn him to the 
prison of the Holy Office. He was also to make a 
public abjuration, inasmuch as he was " vehemently 
suspected of heresy." They were also to order him 
henceforth never to discuss the condemned opinion in 
any form, or he would be considered a relapsed heretic. 
His Dialogo was to be prohibited, and copies of his 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 181 



sentence were to be sent to all Nuncios and Inquisitors, 
especially the Inquisitor of Florence. 

On being questioned about his intention on June 21, 
Galileo replied: " Prior to the decree of 1616, I was 
undecided, believing that both theories were equally 
probable, and might be scientifically defended. After 
the prohibition of 1616, relying on the wisdom of my 
superiors, I held that the Ptolemaic theory was alone 
indubitably true." He persisted in this statement, 
even though the judges pointed to his Dialogo as 
proving the contrary, and threatened him with tor- 
ture (territio verbalis). 

It is now universally admitted that although Galileo 
was threatened with torture, he escaped it because of 
his age and the influence of his many powerful 
friends in Rome. The only modern author that main- 
tains he was tortured is Wohlwill, in his work, 1st 
Galileo gefoltert worden, published in 1887. Father 
Grisar has proved conclusively that the arguments of 
Wohlwill rest on an arbitrary and incorrect rendering 
of the words esame rigoroso. The acts of the trial, 
which of course Wohlwill did not possess in their en- 
tirety when he wrote, are utterly silent on the matter, 
which is the best possible proof that Galileo's judges 
did not proceed to this extremity. Besides, neither he 
nor his friends in any of their writings ever said one 
word about the use of torture. 

The next day, June 22, at the Dominican Convent 
of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Galileo 's condemnation 



182 STUDIES IN CHUKCH HISTORY 



was read in the presence of seven Cardinal Inquisitors. 
They declared him " vehemently suspected of heresy," 
inasmuch as he had held and believed a doctrine 
' ' false and contrary to the Sacred Scriptures. ' ' They 
made him read and sign an act of abjuration, in which 
he declared himself rightly suspected of heresy; they 
forbade the publication of the Dialogo, condemned him 
to the prison of the Holy Office, and imposed as pen- 
ance the seven penitential psalms to be said once a 
week for three years. 

It is at this meeting, after he had signed his ab- 
juration, that Galileo was supposed to have stamped 
his feet in anger and to have cried out: "E pur si 
muove — but it does move." This ridiculous statement 
was first made by the unreliable Abbe Irailh in 1761, 
in the third volume of his Querelles Litter aires. No 
scholar to-day believes this fable. The records of the 
trial present Galileo as most submissive throughout. 
He would not have dared make such a statement, for 
it would have angered his judges, and have made them 
proceed at once to the harshest measures. As a matter 
of fact, on the very day of the sentence which con- 
demned him to the special prison of the Holy Office, 
Pope Urban VIII commuted this penalty by assigning 
as his prison the villa and gardens of his staunch 
friend, Nicolini. 

Galileo left on June 30 for Siena, where he enjoyed 
for five months the hospitality of another devoted 
friend, Cardinal Piccolomini. Towards the end of the 
year, on December 1, he received permission from the 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 183 



Pope to retire to his own villa of Arcetri, near Flor- 
ence. This was very near the Convent of St. Matthew, 
in which two of his daughters lived as religious. While 
he could receive visitors, he was not allowed to leave 
his house without the special permission of the In- 
quisition; and once even we know that this was re- 
fused, when he asked to go to Florence for a few days ' 
medical treatment. The reason of this refusal was an 
anonymous letter sent to the Inquisition at the time 
accusing him and his friend, the Archbishop of Siena, 
"of un-Catholic opinions." "When the storm caused 
by this accusation calmed down, he obtained leave to 
visit Florence for a fortnight, but all the efforts of his 
many friends, princes and prelates to have the penalty 
of imprisonment entirely remitted were of no avail. 

He continued his studies undaunted until the end, 
and was visited by scholars from all over the world. 
He discussed scientific matters with many of his 
friends, and kept up a very large correspondence. He 
became blind in 1638, and this, together with the con- 
tinual nagging of his opponents, rather embittered his 
last days, as we see in many of his letters. Still he 
edified those about him by his faithful performance of 
every religious duty. The Pope continued to grant 
him the pension of one hundred crowns which he had 
given him ever since 1630, and on his deathbed, Janu- 
ary 8, 1642, he sent him the Apostolic Benediction. 

His friends wished to erect a monument to him in 
the Santa Croce Church of Florence, but the Pope 
refused permission, saying to Nicolini : " It would not 



184 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



be a good example for the Grand Duke to erect a 
monument to a man condemned by the Holy Office 
for a false and erroneous opinion which had seduced 
so many minds, and caused so great a scandal through- 
out Christendom/' 

The honor long denied him was at last granted by 
the Holy Office on June 14, 1734, when he was buried 
in the Church of Santa Croce. The following in- 
scription was placed over his tomb : 

GALILiEUS GALILEIS 
GEOMETRIC ASTRONOMIC PHILOSOPHIC 
MAXIMUS RESTITUTOR 
NULLI CTATIS SUM COMPARANDUS 

Part II 

Now that we have a complete record of all the facts 
regarding the condemnation of Galileo, we are ready 
to answer the chief objections that non-Catholics are 
continually urging from them against the Catholic 
Church. There are, in substance, three in number, 
and may be worded, as they have actually been worded, 
on our missions to non-Catholics, as follows : 

1. How can the Catholic Church claim to be infalli- 
ble, when we know that in the seventeenth century she 
condemned the scholar Galileo as a heretic, simply 
because he held the Copernican system of astronomy? 
Did not the Popes of that day expressly declare that 
his views were against the teaching of the Bible, and 
will you not admit that they were wrong ? 

2. Does not the condemnation of Galileo prove that 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 185 



the Catholic Church is in reality hostile to science? 
Did not the Popes, Paul V and Urban VIII, by their 
obscurantist opposition, do everything possible to hin- 
der the progress of scientific studies in Europe? 

3. Did not the Roman Inquisition, by compelling 
Galileo to abjure as false a theory which he held as 
certainly true, encourage hypocrisy, and prove itself 
thereby guilty of the worst form of intolerance ? 

As the vast majority of non- Catholics have the most 
erroneous notions with regard to the infallibility of 
the Pope, it may be good to cite here the Vatican de- 
cree on the subject. It runs as follows: "We teach 
and define it to be a doctrine divinely revealed that 
the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, i. e., 
when he is in the exercise of the office of pastor and 
doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme 
apostolic authority, defines a doctrine regarding faith 
and morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the 
divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter pos- 
sesses that infallibility with which the Divine Re- 
deemer willed His Church to be endowed in the 
definition of a doctrine regarding faith or morals ; and 
that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff 
are irreformable in themselves, and not in virtue of 
the consent of the Church." All theologians, there- 
fore, teach that the Pope is infallible only when the 
four conditions of the Vatican Council are verified, 
viz. : 

1. When he speaks ex cathedra, i. e., as supreme 
Teacher and Doctor of the Universal Church. He is 



186 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



not infallible as a private theologian, as preacher or 
author, as local Bishop, Archbishop, or Primate, or as 
supreme legislator, judge, or ruler. 

2. "When he defines a doctrine, i. e., when he gives 
an absolutely final decision. 

3. When he treats of faith or morals, including the 
entire revelation of God, and all the truths of philos- 
ophy and facts of history which are essential to the 
preservation, explanation, and defense of the content 
of revelation. 

4. When he clearly manifests his intention of bind- 
ing the Universal Church. 

Since in the Galileo case not one of these four con- 
ditions was verified, we fail to see how any one can 
bring it forward as an argument against infalli- 
bility. 

Before showing that the infallibility of the Popes is 
not at all involved in the present case, we will briefly 
mention what we consider as inaccurate answers made 
by some Catholic apologists. 

Some have explained the error made by the ecclesi- 
astical authorities by asserting that they dealt with a 
scientific question which was totally outside of their 
province. It was not a religious question at all, and, 
therefore, there can be no question of the infallibility 
either of the Church or the Popes. 

On the contrary, the question was essentially a 
religious one, because it involved the meaning of cer- 
tain passages of the Holy Scriptures. The Congrega- 
tions were called upon to decide whether or not the 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 187 



Copernican theory was contrary to these passages, and 
whether, therefore, it was to be rejected by every 
Christian as heretical. Both decrees expressly declared 
that they were issued with the avowed intention of 
" utterly destroying a pernicious doctrine, which was 
causing great injury to the Catholic faith. " The 
decree of 1616 says: "Ideo ne ulterius hujusmodi 
opinio in perniciem catholicce veritatis serpat." The 
decree of 1633 in like manner reads: "Ut prorsus tol- 
leretur tarn perniciosa doctrina, neque ulterius ser- 
peret in grave detrimentum catholicce veritatis." 

Other Catholic apologists, like Henri de l'Epinois, 
have declared that the Church could not be held re- 
sponsible in the present case, for both decisions were 
rendered, not in the name of the Popes, but only by 
two fallible Congregations of the Index and the In- 
quisition. But as we have seen above, both judgments 
were de facto rendered in the name of the two Popes, 
Paul V and Urban VIII. 

On February 25, 1616, Paul V ordered Cardinal 
Bellarmine to command Galileo to abandon the Coper- 
nican theory, which the Consultors of the Congrega- 
tion had censured as heretical. On March 3 he pre- 
sided at the session of the Congregation, in which 
Cardinal Bellarmine declared that his orders had been 
carried out. On March 5 the Pope ordered the Master 
of the Sacred Palace to publish the decree of the Index 
which prohibited all books teaching the Copernican 
theory. On May 26, in the document that Cardinal 
Bellarmine gave to Galileo to answer the calumnies of 



188 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



his enemies, we find mention again of the Pope's 
declaration, ' 'that the Copernican theory was contrary 
to the Scriptures, and could not be defended or be- 
lieved." Finally in the letter sent by the Prefect of 
the Congregation of the Index to all the Nuncios and 
Inquisitors, we read that the condemnation was made 
' 1 by order of His Holiness. ' ' 

The same holds good of the decree of 1633. On June 
16, Pope Urban VIII presiding at a solemn session 
of the Inquisition, ordered the Inquisitors to question 
Galileo regarding his intention. The Pope also or- 
dered him never again to discuss the condemned opin- 
ion, under penalty of being considered a relapsed 
hertic. The Pope also ordered the suppression of the 
Dialogo, and had copies of the sentence sent to all 
Nuncios and Inquisitors. It is, therefore, as clear as 
the noonday sun that the condemnation of Galileo 
and of the Copernican theory in 1616 and 1633 were 
really acts of Papal authority, and, therefore, acts of 
the Head of the teaching Church. 

"It is true," writes Jaugey, 1 "that the Pope exer- 
cises his power at times directly and at times indirectly 
by means of the Roman Congregations, to whom he 
delegates a portion of his supreme authority. But in 
both cases, the decrees rendered have their origin and 
their effectiveness in the power of the Pope. The 
Roman Congregations form with the Pope but one 
and the same tribunal, as the Vicar- General with the 
Bishop; they are the instruments the Pope uses to 

iLe Proces de Galilee et la Theologie, p. 35. 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 189 



govern and to teach. If this is true when the Eoman 
Congregations render their decisions in virtue of the 
general powers which they have received of the 
Sovereign Pontiff, it is still more true when the Pope 
intervenes personally in the decisions, as in the pres- 
ent case." 

A few apologists, like the Jesuit Father Grisar, have 
endeavored to show that the opinions of Galileo were 
not condemned as heretical, but only as "temerari- 
ous," or, "contrary to the Scriptures." But his ar- 
guments fail to prove his contention. The words of 
Urban VIII, in a private conversation, and the per- 
sonal opinions of a few theologians, prove nothing 
against the plain wording of the decrees of 1616 and 
1633. This is the view of the great majority of 
Catholic scholars. 

A careful study of the text of the two decrees proves 
to evidence that they were in no sense infallible pro- 
nouncements. There is no question in either of them 
of any ex cathedra teaching, or of any intention of 
proposing a doctrine to be held by the Universal 
Church. 

The decree of 1616 merely prohibits all books that 
teach the Copernican theory. It does not command 
the faithful to hold the Ptolemaic theory as true, and 
the Copernican theory as false. It is, therefore, evi- 
dently a disciplinary decree, prescribing what one 
must do, and not what one must believe. It is true 
that the reasons that prompted the Popes and the 
Cardinals to pass the decree were doctrinal, but these 



190 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



reasons never form an integral part of the decree 
itself. Even in an infallible decision they may be 
considered erroneous, as all theologians teach. That 
these reasons do not belong essentially to the decree 
itself is proved by the action of the Congregation of 
the Index, which in 1664 omitted all the words declar- 
ing the falsity of the Copernican theory, and made the 
decree read: 1 'All books teaching the movement of 
the earth, and the immobility of the sun. ' ' We know 
also that before 1854 the Popes issued several dis- 
ciplinary decrees on the Immaculate Conception, with 
the idea of strengthening that belief in the minds of 
the faithful; but no one ever dreamed of considering 
these decisions infallible. 

The decree of the Inquisition in 1633 is even more 
clearly disciplinary in its scope. It is simply an offi- 
cial declaration of the guilt of Galileo, and an im- 
posing of a sentence upon him for his disobedience of 
orders. The reasons again were doctrinal, inasmuch 
as they tried him for what they considered heretical 
opinions. But the reason of their condemnation does 
not of itself constitute an article of faith. It is not 
a definition ex cathedra issued by the Pope for the 
acceptance of the Universal Church. 

The form in which both decrees were given also 
proves that they are not infallible pronouncements. 
The Abbe Vacandard writes: 2 "In a definition ex 
cathedra, it is the Pope who speaks in person ; he may, 
if he choose, ask the views of the Congregations, but 
2 Etudes de Critique et d'Histoire, vol. i, p. 359. 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 191 



their opinion is regarded only as a mere consultation ; 
the sentence, properly speaking, is his work. In the 
trials of 1616 and 1633, the Popes order, but the Con- 
gregations act ; it is they that pronounce the sentence. 
If, therefore, infallibility be an incommunicable pre- 
rogative, it is manifest that their decision cannot be 
infallible." 

It is certain that neither in Galileo 's time, nor in the 
period immediately following, can one theologian or 
scholar be cited who considered the two decrees ren- 
dered against Galileo infallible. On the contrary, 
many can be quoted who plainly assert that they were 
not infallible decisions. 

In a letter to Father Foscarini, April 12, 1615, 
Cardinal Bellarmine wrote: "I wish to say that, if 
ever the Copernican theory be really demonstrated, 
we must then be more careful in explaining those 
passages of the Scriptures which appear contrary 
thereto. We must say then that we do not understand 
their meaning, rather than declare a thing false which 
has been proved to be true. But I do not think that 
such a demonstration will ever be made. ' 7 

The Jesuit Father Tanner, writing in 1626, cites the 
decree of the Index, and asserts that the Copernican 
theory cannot safely be taught. He does not say that 
it is heretical. 3 

Fromont, a professor at Louvain, and an ardent op- 
ponent of Galileo, declares expressly that he cannot 
consider the Copernican theory definitely condemned, 
3 Theol. Scolast., ii, 6, 4. 



192 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



"at least,' ' he says, "until I see something more pre- 
cise emanating from the Head of the Church. ' ' 4 

Descartes in his letters assures his friends of his 
loyalty to the decisions of the Roman Congregations, 
but he openly expresses the hope that one day they 
will be reversed. 5 

In 1643, Gassendi, a great friend of Galileo's, after 
declaring his willingness to give up the Copernican 
theory in view of its condemnation at Rome, adds: 
"I do not, however, consider their decision an article 
of faith. I do not believe that the Cardinals have so 
declared it, nor that their decrees have been promul- 
gated or received by the whole Church. Their deci- 
sion, however, should have great weight in the minds 
of the faithful." 6 

The Jesuit Father Riccioli wrote in 1651: "As in 
this matter there has been no definition by the Sov- 
ereign Pontiff, nor by a Council directed or approved 
by him ; it is by no means of faith that the sun moves 
and that the earth is immovable, at least in virtue of 
the decree." 7 

Bishop Caramuel, writing in 1651, says: "What 
would happen if scholars were one day to demonstrate 
the truth of the Copernican theory ? ' ' He replies : "In 
that case the Cardinals would allow us to interpret the 
words of Josue x. as metaphorical expressions. ' ' 8 

4 Anti-Aristarchus. p. 17. 

s Correspondance, vol. i, pp. 270, 288. Edit. Adam-Tannery. 

6 De Motu Impresso, vol. iii, p. 471. 

7 Almagestum Novum, vol. i, p. 52. 
s Theol. Moral. Fund., vol. i, p. 273. 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 193 



The charge that the Catholic Church is essentially 
opposed to science has been frequently refuted in the 
writings of the Popes, and the decrees of the Councils, 
and is given the lie direct by the Church's history 
from the beginning. 

Pope Leo XIII declared the Church's attitude in his 
encyclical, Immortelle Dei: "As all that is true comes 
necessarily from God, the Church recognizes in every 
truth which scientists discover a sort of vestige of the 
divine intelligence. And as in the truths of the 
natural order, nothing weakens one's faith in the doc- 
trines revealed by God, while many things strengthen 
it ; and as every discovery of the truth can help us to 
know and love God, the Church will always welcome 
gladly any new discovery that will enlarge the bound- 
aries of human knowledge. She will always encour- 
age science which has for its object the knowledge of 
nature." 

The Vatican Council teaches clearly that there can 
be no real opposition between the truths of the natural 
and those of the supernatural order, but it asserts just 
as clearly the Church's right to condemn those scien- 
tific theories which go counter to the truths of divine 
revelation. The words are: "Although faith is above 
reason, there can never be any real opposition between 
faith and reason, since it is the same God Who re- 
veals mysteries and gives faith, and "Who gives the 
human soul the light of reason. God, however, can- 
not contradict Himself, and the truth cannot contra- 
diet the truth. The vain appearance of such a con- 



194 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



tradiction comes principally from the fact that the 
dogmas of the faith are not understood and set forth 
according to the mind of the Church, or that false 
opinions are taken for the certain teachings of rea- 
son." 

4 'The Church which, with the apostolic mission to 
teach, has received the command to guard the deposit 
of faith, holds also from God the right and the duty 
to proscribe false science, so that no one 'be cheated 
by philosophy and vain deceit' (Col. ii. 8). That is 
why all faithful Christians must reject as false those 
opinions which are opposed to the teaching of the 
faith, especially if they are denounced by the Church. 
They must also consider them not as the legitimate 
conclusions of science, but as errors hidden under the 
deceitful appearance of the truth. . . . The Church 
does not prohibit the profane sciences from using, in 
their own sphere, their own peculiar principles, and 
methods ; but, while fully recognizing this true liberty, 
she watches carefully that they do not oppose the 
divine teaching by falling into error, or by going be- 
yond their true limits." 

In the case of Galileo, we must remember that the 
scientists of the day were as bitter against him as the 
theologians. The majority of scientists then believed 
firmly in the truth of the Ptolemaic theory, and they 
felt convinced, and rightly so, that Galileo had not 
adduced one scientific proof for his new opinions. The 
judges who condemned him rejected his views as scien- 
tifically false, as well as dogmatically heretical. 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 195 



Blame them if you will for believing too strongly in 
a current scientific theory, but do not be so ridiculous 
as to accuse them of any hostility to science it- 
self. 

As a matter of fact, did the condemnation of Galileo 
hinder the progress of scientific studies in Europe? 
That the Roman decisions retarded for a time the spe- 
cial researches that were one day to make the 
Copernican theory morally certain, we are perfectly 
willing to admit. Descartes, for instance, was one who 
gave up his researches on the movement of the earth, 
and kept from publication his Monde, which contained 
a defense of the Copernican theory. ' ' He preferred, ' ' 
he said, "to be blamed for his silence rather than for 
his discourse.' ' Of course, even after the decree of 
1616, Galileo worked for years on the problem, and 
although after 1633 he desisted from further re- 
searches, his friends took up the problem where he had 
left it, although they had to pursue their studies in 
spite of the prohibition of the Holy Office. 

Is it not strange that those who bring out this fact, 
never mention the opposition made by the Protestant- 
ism of the day to the Copernican theory? Luther 
thought Copernicus somewhat of a fool, while Me- 
lanchthon declared the new theory meant the destruc- 
tion of all science. In 1659 we find Calovius of Wit- 
tenberg declaring that reason must give way to the 
teaching of the Scriptures, and that the Lutheran 
theologians of his day rejected the theory to a man. 
As late as 1744 we read of a Lutheran pastor of Ratze- 



196 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



burg declaring that the Copernican theory was an in- 
vention of the devil. 

That the Roman decrees hindered the general prog- 
ress of science is absolutely false, for the Italy of that 
period fairly swarmed with scientists and scientific 
academies. Jaugey writes in the work cited above, 
p. 112: 4 4 At Florence, Prince Leopold de Medici, 
later on Cardinal, founded the Academy of the Cim- 
ento, to foster the natural sciences, especially the study 
of astronomy. This institution did not last long, but 
it included among its members Rinaldini, Oliva, and 
Borelli. At Bologna, a pontifical city, were two fa- 
mous mathematicians, Ricci and Montalbani; the 
Jesuit Riccioli, the author of the Almagestum; the 
Jesuit Grimaldi who discovered the diffraction of 
light ; Cassini who later on was to make the Paris Ob- 
servatory famous; Castelli, Davisi, and a number of 
other scholars. In the same city, Mezzavacca pub- 
lished his Ephemerides astronomiques. At Rome Cas- 
sini discovered the satellites of Saturn; Megalotti 
studied the comets, and Plati made his remarkable dis- 
coveries on the eclipses of the sun, ' ' etc. 

We come now to the last objection, which looks at the 
ease from the moral point of view. Did not the 
Roman Inquisition, by compelling Galileo to abjure 
as false a theory which he held as certainly true, en- 
courage hypocrisy, and prove itself thereby guilty of 
the worst form of intolerance? 

If we are to judge by the official documents, Galileo 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 197 



was not called upon by the ecclesiastical authorities to 
abjure what he believed to be certain. As we saw 
above, he declared in a letter to Monsignor Dini before 
his first trial in 1616 : "I would rather pluck out my 
eye than give scandal. I would do anything rather 
than resist my superiors and injure my soul, by main- 
taining against them an opinion which at present 
seems to me to be evident and worthy of credence." 
After the decree had been published he wrote again 
on March 5: 1 1 The result of this affair has proved 
that my opinion is not accepted by the Church.' ' In 
the letters he wrote a year or two before the second 
trial, he also showed himself most submissive. He 
writes on May 3, 1631 : "If you could see with what 
submission and with what respect I am willing to con- 
sider as dreams, chimeras, equivocations, and falsities, 
all the proofs and all the arguments which in the judg- 
ment of my ecclesiastical superiors support a system, 
which they disapprove, you and the public would un- 
derstand how strong is the sentiment that I now pro- 
fess, never to have in this matter any other opinion or 
intention save that held by the Fathers and Doctors of 
Holy Church." Again on October 6, 1632, he writes: 
"I wish to show myself, as I am, a most obedient and 
zealous son of Holy Church." At the last interroga- 
tory in the second trial of 1633, he asserted that "after 
the decision of 1616, relying on the wisdom of my 
superiors, I held as undoubtedly true the opinion of 
Ptolemy." Even though they threatened him with 



198 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTOEY 



torture, they were unable to make him admit that he 
had ever taught after 1616 the Copernican theory as 
an objective truth. 

Yet despite all these positive assertions, we must 
admit that they contradict the general tone of his con- 
versations, his letters, and his works, especially the 
Dialogo, in which he plainly defended, and at time 
with the greatest bitterness, the Copernican theory. 

How are we to reconcile this evident contradiction ? 
Do the official documents give us an absolute cer- 
tainty with regard to Galileo's real sentiments, or are 
they, as many non-Catholics argue, merely the forced 
statements of a man unwilling to be a martyr for the 
truth ? ' ' This, ' ' says the Abbe Vacandard, ' ' is a ques- 
tion very hard to answer. We think it very presump- 
tuous for any one to assert that Galileo's solemn dis- 
avowal of his writings was insincere. We have good 
reason, however, to think that his mind was not al- 
ways calm when he thought of his condemnation. It 
seems very probable that at times his mind reverted 
to the opinions which had been condemned. It is re- 
ported that his friend, Archbishop Piccolomini of 
Siena, assured him that "he had been unjustly treated 
by the Sacred Congregation, and that one day his 
ideas would prevail." Such a suggestion was calcu- 
lated to produce feelings of bitterness against his op- 
ponents. We are not surprised, therefore, to find 
him giving expression to these feelings, at least in 
secret." 9 

9 Etudes de Critique, vol. i, p. 363. 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 199 



In fact we have some notes of his found a few years 
ago in the library of the Seminary of Padua (ms. 352), 
which puts this beyond the shadow of a doubt. They 
are as follows: "Apropos of Novelties: And who 
doubts that this novelty of wishing that minds created 
free by God should become the slaves of another 's will, 
is not of such a nature as to cause great scandal ? To 
wish that others deny their own opinions, and submit 
to the will of another. To admit that persons ab- 
solutely ignorant of a science or an art are called upon 
to be the judges of savants, and have the power to 
treat them as they please in virtue of their authority. 
These are the novelties calculated to ruin republics 
and overthrow states. ' ' 

He then addresses the theologians directly, saying : 
"The new doctrines that cause harm are yours, 
whereby you try to force the mind not to think and 
the eyes not to see. ... It is you who are the occa- 
sion of heresy when, without any reason, you seek to 
interpret the Scriptures according to your private 
judgment, and desire scholars to deny their own views 
and convincing proofs. You are the authors of novel- 
ties which may cause the ruin of religion. ' ' 

"These notes prove," says de Vregille, "that de- 
spite his docility, he had not lost all faith in his genius 
and his discoveries. But there is nothing in them to 
prove that he regretted his abjuration. Intellectual 
submission to the Church's viewpoint was natural to 
him, although in his hours of questioning and suffer- 
ing, his will was not always in control. Besides, he 



200 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



was excusable, for the interior assent that was re- 
quired of him by the Roman decrees was neither com- 
plete nor absolute, but was based only on motives of 
prudence. ' ' 10 

As we have seen above, there was no Catholic 
theologian at the time who considered these decrees 
infallible or irref ormable ; absolute assent could not 
possibly be required to them, for there was a possibil- 
ity that they might be erroneous. Jaugey thus writes 
on this matter of assent : ' ' The intellectual assent re- 
quired is proportioned to the motive on which it 
rests ; as, in the present case, this motive is a declara- 
tion of the ecclesiastical authorities subject to revi- 
sion, the assent of the mind thereunto cannot be ab- 
solute. The intellect, commanded by the will, submits 
because it has confidence even in the fallible decisions 
of the Holy See. This confidence, moreover, rests on 
the habitual wisdom of the Popes, the ordinary graces 
given them by God to govern the Church well, and the 
knowledge and virtue of the various members of the 
Congregations, whom the Pope consults and speaks 
through. That is what Galileo meant when he de- 
clared that he had given up the Copernican theory 
after 1616, relying on the wisdom of his superiors.' ' 11 

All those who object to the forced abjuration of 
Galileo seem to think that he had demonstrated his 
theory. No scholar to-day holds that he did. He was 
much more skillful in answering the objections of his 

10 Diet. Apol., vol. ii, col. 181. 

11 Le Proces de Galilee, p. 119. 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 201 



opponents than in setting forth, positive proofs. The 
only three scientific arguments that he really did bring 
forward, based as they were on the phenomenon of the 
tides, the movement of the solar spots, and the appar- 
ent movement of the planets, either proved nothing 
at all in favor of the Copernican theory, or were in 
absolute contradiction to the facts. As the astronomer 
Laplace put it, he defended his views only by proofs 
from analogy. Such proofs have, undoubtedly, a real 
value, and even to-day they are the chief reasons for 
our belief in the rotation of the earth. But they are 
not capable of affording a demonstrative proof. Of 
course, he was ignorant of many facts that are known 
to the children of to-day, viz., the phenomena of aber- 
ration, the depression of the earth at the poles, the 
variation of the pendulum according to latitude, etc. 
"We can hardly, therefore, blame his opponents when 
they refused to be convinced by arguments, which they 
thought — and rightly, too — proved their theory as 
much as his. 

It has frequently been stated that the Jesuits were 
responsible for the condemnation of Galileo. Like 
many another accusation against them, this rests on 
no positive proof. Galileo himself thought they had 
something to do with it, for we have a letter in which, 
writing to Elia Diodati, he quotes a statement of the 
Jesuit Father Grienberger, Professor of Mathematics 
at the Roman College : ' * ' If Galileo had known how to 
win the affection of the Fathers of the Roman College, 
he could have lived in peace and happiness, and could 



202 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 



have written, as he thought fit, on any subject, even 
on the movement of the earth. ' You see, therefore, ' ' 
adds Galileo, "that they are not combating me on 
account of my ideas, but merely because I am in dis- 
grace with the Jesuits." "We find this accusation re- 
peated years after in the bitter pages of Pascal. 
What are the facts ? 

In the beginning we know that the Jesuits were his 
best friends. We find him writing, April 22, 1611, 
during his first visit to Rome: "Every one here is 
well disposed towards me, especially the Jesuit 
Fathers." Indeed, one of his first visits was to the 
Roman College, where Father Clavius, the Professor 
of Mathematics, received him most kindly, and assured 
him that he had verified his discoveries. Other ex- 
cellent mathematicians among them were his friends, 
such as Guldin, Grienberger, and van Maelcote. Of 
course, there were some members of the Society who 
protested against the enthusiasm of their confreres, 
and objected to the novel views of Galileo. After 
1611, when Galileo began to venture into the field of 
exegesis, even his personal friends among them held a 
bit aloof. There is a letter of Father Grienberger 's 
to Monsignor Dini, written at this time, which says: 
"Let Galileo bring forward some convincing scientific 
proofs of his theory, before he begins to discuss the 
Holy Scriptures." Moreover, when Galileo began to 
attack Aristotle directly, they were obliged to take 
the field against him. For their fiftieth General Con- 
gregation, which assembled in 1593, had issued a de- 



THE CONDEMNATION OF GALILEO 203 



cree commanding all members of the Society to defend 
Aristotle; and superiors everywhere saw that this 
decree was enforced. The bitter attacks of Father 
Grassi, and a controversy also with Father Scheiner, 
who claimed to have first discovered the solar spots, 
further embittered Galileo. By 1633 he had com- 
pletely broken with his old friends. 

But to accuse them of bringing about his condemna- 
tion is an altogether different matter. They had no 
special influence with Urban VIII, nor with the mem- 
bers of the Holy Office. Only one of the Consultors 
of 1633 was a Jesuit, and there was not one of them 
among the Inquisitors. 

The Dominicans were far more active in both trials, 
which was perfectly natural, considering their official 
position as members of the Congregation. 

Independently of any religious order, it was the 
vast majority of the theologians of the day that urged 
the Holy See to condemn Galileo, because of his at- 
tacks on Aristotle, whose scientific theories were then 
accepted as certain, and because of his unwise ventur- 
ing into the field of Scriptural interpretation. It is 
easy for us to-day to point out the mistakes they made 
in their overzeal for the defense of what they firmly be- 
lieved to be the truth, but is it just or reasonable to 
judge the seventeenth century from the viewpoint of 
the twentieth? Their motive was certainly a high 
one — to defend, as they thought, a truth of divine 
revelation. They were right in maintaining the gen- 
eral law of exegesis, that Scriptural texts are to be 



/ 



204 STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY 

taken in their literal sense, unless there are good rea- 
sons to the contrary. They were wrong only in for- 
getting the wise teaching of both St. Thomas and St. 
Augustine, that in describing the phenomena of nature 
the Bible speaks according to appearances. 

In a certain sense, this condemnation of Galileo was 
providential. It proves conclusively that whenever 
there is apparent contradiction between the truths of 
science and the truths of faith, either the scientist is 
declaring as proved what in reality is a mere hypothe- 
sis, or the theologian is putting forth his own personal 
views instead of the teaching of the Gospel. 




+ 



THE END 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Dec. 2005 



PreservationTechnologii 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATI 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




